Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed providing him with replacement waste bins. He also complained the Council discriminated against him because of his disability when he tried to make a complaint about the delay. Mr X says the Council’s actions caused him avoidable inconvenience and distress. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and provide a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed providing him with replacement waste bins. He also complained the Council discriminated against him because of his disability when he tried to make a complaint about the delay. He says the Council’s actions caused him avoidable inconvenience and distress, and meant he was without suitable waste bins for a prolonged period of time. Mr X would like the Council to provide him with a financial remedy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
7. I made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided.
8. Mr X and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Household waste and recycling collections

9. Councils have a duty under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to collect household waste and recycling from properties in their area. The collections do not have to be weekly, and councils can decide the type of bins or boxes people must use.
10. The Council provides general waste and recycling bins for its residents. The Council’s website allows residents to order new or replacement bins online.
11. The Council’s waste collection service is provided by a third-party company on behalf of the Council.

Equality Act 2010

12. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
13. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
14. The protected characteristics referred to in the Act are:

• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• marriage and civil partnership;
• pregnancy and maternity;
• race;
• religion or belief;
• sex; and
• sexual orientation.

15. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
16. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.
17. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.

What happened

18. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
19. In April 2023, Mr X contacted the Council to order a new general waste bin to replace a damaged one. Mr X told the Council he was unhappy with the length of time it would take to receive a new bin, as at that time, the Council advised service users of a timeframe of 12 weeks to deliver new bins.
20. On 26 May 2023, Mr X called the Council to complain it had not collected his damaged bin. Mr X told the Council he has dyslexia and asked to submit his complaint verbally rather than by completing a complaint form. The advisor who spoke to Mr X said he needed to complete an online complaint form. Mr X complained the advisor did not take his complaint verbally and instead terminated the call.
21. Shortly after, on the same day, Mr X called the Council again. He complained the Council did not provide reasonable assistance for him to make his complaint when he told it he has dyslexia. He complained the Council had discriminated against him as a result, as dyslexia is considered a disability under the Equality Act.
22. The Council provided its complaint response on 15 June 2023, upholding Mr X’s complaint. It acknowledged Mr X told the Council he has dyslexia and wanted to provide his information over the telephone, and that instead of doing this, it signposted him to the Council’s website and then ended the call. The Council apologised and said the officer should have taken details of the complaint over the telephone. The Council also acknowledged Mr X had been trying to complain about a waste bin that he no longer required. It said its waste team would remove the bin within the next five working days.
23. In August 2023, Mr X called the Council to request a new recycling bin, and to chase collection of the broken general waste bin.
24. Mr X called the Council again in September 2023 regarding this matter.
25. On 22 September 2023, Mr X called the Council again. He said the Council had delivered a new bin but had not collected the damaged one.
26. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint in October 2023. He said he felt the Council’s apology in its previous complaint response was an admission of guilt. Mr X said he felt the Council had discriminated against him but had not admitted to this.
27. The Council provided its complaint response on 23 October 2023. It said it had admitted fault in its previous response and referred to the Council’s complaint policy. The Council said its complaint policy states any customer can make a complaint in the way that best suits them, including by telephone. The Council said it had provided further training to the advisor who spoke to Mr X, and said it considered the matter was a training issue rather than a case of discrimination. The Council apologised for not allowing Mr X to initially provide his complaint verbally. It also apologised for the delay in providing a new waste bin and said it had provided a replacement on 16 October 2023. The Council said it had experienced issues with providing new bins, but its contractor was working through the backlog.

What happened next

28. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought his complaint to us.
29. The Council provided Mr X with a new recycling bin in February 2024.

Analysis – delays

30. Mr X complained the Council delayed providing him with replacement waste bins. He says he reported the damaged general waste bin in about May 2023, but the Council did not collect it until about December 2023, and did not provide a replacement until January 2024. Mr X also says he requested a replacement recycling bin in about May 2023 but did not receive it until February 2024.
31. The Council has provided details of its contact records with Mr X. These conflict with some of Mr X’s explanation, but also, in some cases, with the Council’s own explanation of its actions. For example, the Council’s initial enquiry response stated Mr X called on 17 and 19 October 2023 to chase removal of the damaged general waste bin; however, the Council’s response to further enquiries and its complaint response to Mr X stated it collected the bin on 16 October 2023.
32. As a result, it is not clear from the information received, on the exact dates the Council provided a new general waste bin and/or collected the damaged one. When considering complaints where there is conflicting or unclear information, we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened, based on the balance of probabilities. I have therefore carefully considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council, and made a finding based on the balance of probabilities.
33. At the time of Mr X’s initial contact with the Council regarding this matter, the waiting time for a new or replacement bin was 12 weeks. Mr X requested a new waste bin in April 2023. On the balance of probabilities, the evidence indicates the Council provided a replacement bin in September or October 2023; I have seen no evidence the Council provided the bin before this. The period from April 2023 to September/October 2023 is longer than the stated waiting time of 12 weeks. I acknowledge the Council apologised for this delay in its complaint response dated 23 October 2023.
34. The evidence indicates Mr X requested a replacement recycling bin in August 2023 and received it in February 2024. This period is longer than the stated waiting time of 12 weeks.
35. Mr X also complained the Council delayed collecting the damaged bin from his property. The Council told Mr X in its complaint response of 15 June 2023 it would collect the damaged bin within five working days. The evidence indicates the Council collected the bin in October 2023.
36. From the above, the Council incurred delays in providing new/replacement bins and in collecting the damaged bin. This delay is fault.

Mr X’s complaint of discrimination

37. Mr X complained the Council discriminated against him because it did not allow him to submit his complaint verbally, despite telling the Council he has dyslexia.
38. The Council says its complaints policy says anyone, regardless of disability, can submit a complaint in a way that best suits them, including by telephone. It says the advisor who spoke to Mr X made a genuine error in misapplying due process and did not show discriminatory behaviour. The Council apologised to Mr X for its error and says it has provided training to the advisor and its other staff to ensure they are aware of how to handle complaints.
39. As previously stated, we cannot find that a body in jurisdiction has breached the Equality Act, as this is a matter for the courts. However, we can find a body at fault for failing to take account of their duties under the Equality Act. In this case, that means considering whether the Council considered making a reasonable adjustment to allow Mr X to make a complaint over the telephone when he stated he has dyslexia.
40. I acknowledge the Council’s comments that it made an error in misapplying due process; I also acknowledge its complaints policy allows anyone to submit a complaint verbally if that is the way it best suits them. The Council should have adhered to its complaints policy, but additionally, should have considered its duties under the Equality Act, particularly when Mr X stated he has dyslexia.
41. The evidence indicates the Council did not consider making a reasonable adjustment at the time of Mr X’s initial request. This is because the advisor did not allow Mr X to submit his complaint verbally when he said he is dyslexic, (and therefore may have had difficulty completing an online form). Instead, the Council signposted Mr X to its website to complete an online form, and then terminated the call.
42. As a result, the Council has not demonstrated how it considered its duties under the Equality Act at the time of Mr X’s initial call. This, together with the Council’s failure to adhere to its complaints policy is fault.
43. Having identified fault, I must consider if this caused Mr X an injustice. The Council says there was no delay in Mr X making his complaint as it accepted the complaint when Mr X called again on the same day. The Council also says it apologised to Mr X in its complaint responses.
44. Mr X says the Council’s actions caused him avoidable inconvenience and frustration; he says the Council left him without suitable waste bins for several months. He also says third parties placed rubbish in the uncollected damaged bin, causing an accumulation of waste which attracted flies.
45. Whilst I acknowledge the Council’s comments that it did not delay accepting Mr X’s complaint, it remains that Mr X had to call the Council a second time for his complaint to be accepted. This incurred additional time and trouble and frustration to Mr X, as well as the frustration caused by the delay in providing replacement bins and collecting the damaged one.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although there is fault with the service of the waste collection service provider, I have made recommendations to the Council.
47. To address the injustice identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:
1. Provide an apology to Mr X for the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings;
2. Make a symbolic payment of £200 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble to Mr X, and
3. Remind staff of the Council’s duty to consider reasonable adjustments for service users.
48. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

49. I have found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to take the above action to remedy this complaint. I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman