At a meeting of its Standard's Committee held late last month, the Cheshire council, which is now planning a review of its waste collection policies, agreed with the Local Government Ombudsman's findings that it had not “responded effectively” to a resident's requests for a second wheeled bin and “made no proper assessment of the volume of waste generated by the household”.
The resident, known as 'Mr H', also complained in 2006 that 11 out of 20 collections of bagged residual waste which had not been placed in his single wheeled bin were missed.
He did not complete an application for a second wheeled bin because he was aware that he would not qualify under the council's policy and the Ombudsman ruled that the council had committed maladministration by still insisting on the completion of an application form, despite the missed collections.
During the Committee meeting, the council accepted the three recommendations made by the Ombudsman in August to remedy the situation, but, it refuted the claim that it had been “stubborn in its insistence that the householder complete an application for a second wheeled bin”.
Following the report, Congleton council announced plans to re-evaluate its waste collection policies and practices, which are currently being reviewed ahead of the division of Cheshire county council into East and West unitary authorities in April 2009.
The Committee added two further recommendations to remedy the situation, which would see policies for the new Cheshire East unitary authority including a timescale for responding to applications for new bins, while Congleton council will write to Defra for ‘clearer advice' on the subject.
And, it has also compensated the resident with £250 for having to dispose of the waste himself at a tip 12 miles away and also intends to offer improved training for employees on laws relating to waste collection.
Parliament
The broader impact of the Ombudsman's report for all council's waste policies was raised in a Parliament question two weeks ago (October 20), where minister for waste and recycling Jane Kennedy said that, despite Congleton's “insufficient efforts” in this case, the circumstances did not alter the right of local authorities to limit the number of householders' waste receptacles.
Investigation
The Ombudsman's investigation came after 'Mr H' complained formally to the council in February 2006 and also requested an additional 240 litre receptacle but was instead served with a Section 46 notice under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 setting out how he should put out waste for collection.
Local Government Ombudsman Anne Seex investigated the complaint, which was made to her office in April 2006, and concluded that there had been five instances of maladministration on the part of the council in her final report published on July 29 2008.
Ms Seex found that the council had acted with maladministration in failing to collect his household waste, failing to respond effectively to complaints, and failed to make a correct assessment of waste generated by the household before deciding whether to provide a second wheeled bin.
The Ombudsman found that the council had given a “materially misleading account of specific advice it had received from Defra” on the applicable nature of a Section 46 notice, after the council claimed Defra confirmed it was not obligated to collect all the excess waste generated at the household.
Interpretation
During the Ombudsman's investigation, Defra denied this interpretation, saying if the resident was making every effort to recycle but still generating excessive waste, and even offered to pay for a second receptacle, it would be “hard to see how the authority can justify refusing to collect waste from a second bin.”
And, this fed into the Ombudsman's conclusion that the council was “stubborn in their insistence that the householder complete an application form for a second wheelie bin under their policy”.
Register for free to comment