Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council collects refuse from properties in the complainant’s area. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council reversing refuse collection vehicles down the narrow lane next to her home, and about liquid/waste from the bins and the vehicles spilling onto the ground. Miss X says the Councils practices cause significant health and safety concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence and videos of some refuse collections.
5. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Miss X is very unhappy about the way the Council collects refuse from the properties in the area, and thinks it should make changes.
7. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not ask whether the Council could have done things better/differently, or whether we agree or disagree with what it has done. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it has made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.
8. I consider there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify starting an investigation into this complaint. In reaching this view I am mindful that:
• Although an entrance sign says the road is “unsuitable for HGV’s”, the Council says this is only advisory, and does not mean these vehicles cannot use the road. The Council uses its smallest vehicles to access the road, and these are fitted with reversing cameras. The driver and banksmen also receive training to carry out their roles.
• Given the number and size of the bins in this location, and the distance they would have to be moved, the Council has explained it would not be viable for them taken to the main road for emptying.
• The Council has undertaken Route Risk Assessments and says these are reviewed annually.
• If residents put liquid in their bins, then unfortunately some spillage may occur when the bins are emptied. The Council has also explained that all refuse collection vehicles have an overspill pipe which will release some liquid from time-to-time. It has asked the driver to switch off this overspill function when collecting from this location.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman