Summary: Mr X complained his bins are not properly returned, despite numerous complaints and Council promises. He said this has a disproportionate impact on him because he has disabilities and struggles to put his bins back himself. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X, and carry out further monitoring.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained his bins are not properly returned, despite numerous complaints and Council promises.
2. Mr X said this has a disproportionate impact on him because he has disabilities and struggles to put his bins back himself. He said the problem has been going on for years.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. 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)
5. 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, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. A company delivers the Council’s refuse collection services on the Council’s behalf.
9. In early 2024, Mr X complained that his bin had not been properly returned to his address after collection. He said he has disabilities that make it difficult for him to reach the bin if it is not properly returned.
10. The Council replied saying it had spoken to the refuse collection crews. It said it had given clear instructions on where to return Mr X’s bin to.
11. Two weeks later, Mr X complained again that his bins had not been properly returned.
12. The Council apologised. It said it had issued a further instruction to crews. It said, “If this happens again service area internal disciplinary procedures will start.”
13. Mr X emailed the Council within a month saying the resolution had only worked for two weeks, and the problem had returned.
14. The Council apologised that the problem was still happening. It said Mr X had exhausted the complaints procedure so he should complain to the Ombudsman. It said it had told the contracted company that crews were still not following the instruction.
15. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

16. I find the Council’s instructions to the crews were very clear. The instruction came with a photo of Mr X’s house with clear green arrows showing where to return the bin, and red crosses indicating where not to put it. This was appropriate.
17. The Council said that while it received Mr X’s email saying the resolution had only lasted two weeks, it failed to take the action it said it would. The Council said Mr X’s email was not passed on to a manager or supervisor. For this reason, the Council took no action.
18. This is fault. The Council failed to take the action it said it would take. This caused injustice because it caused Mr X uncertainty and unnecessary and avoidable frustration.
19. Mr X told me the problem is still happening. He said it was “hit and miss”. He said he has not contacted the Council about all the times his bin has not been properly returned as he feels he will be “fobbed off” again. This is understandable.

Back to top

Agreed action

20. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X in writing for the uncertainty and avoidable and unnecessary frustration caused by the fault.
21. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making this apology.
22. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X of £200 to remedy the uncertainty and frustration caused. In arriving at this figure, I considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. I consider this amount is appropriate and proportionate because of the significant impact on Mr X due to his disabilities, and the high level of frustration from being promised the Council would take action but it did not, despite Mr X’s report.
23. Within three months of this decision, the Council has agreed to monitor how crews return Mr X’s bin to his property, in line with the clear instructions previously given, for a period of six weeks. The Council has agreed crews will take photos to show where they returned the bin to. The Council has agreed to share these photos with Ombudsman. If there is evidence that Mr X’s bin is not being returned properly, the Council has agreed to tell the Ombudsman how it proposes to make sure the problem does not continue.
24. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman