Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to not grant him entry to a Household Waste Recycling Centre. He is also unhappy a member of staff was not wearing a mask to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains he was turned away from a Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) because he did not have a permit or proof he was a Wakefield Resident. Mr X says he has never been asked for a permit or proof of residency before. Mr X also says a member of staff was not wearing a mask despite being within one metre of him. Mr X says this placed him at increased risk of contracting COVID-19.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. In March 2021, Mr X visited a Council HWRC. Mr X queued for entry but was turned away when he did not produce a permit or proof of address. Mr X complained to the Council. He said he had never been asked to provide a permit or proof of residency before. Mr X also said a member of staff did not wear a mask despite being within one metre of him. Mr X said that if a permit is required the Council should send them to all residents. Mr X said staff at the HWRC were unable to say how his personal information would be stored. Mr X was also unhappy with how a request for a copy of CCTV footage had been dealt with.
6. The Council has responded to Mr X’s complaints. It said that:
• A reduction in capacity of the HWRC due to COIVD-19 has led to more people having to queue.
• The HWRC is paid for by Wakefield Council and a permit or proof of residency is needed to ensure the facility is used by local residents. The Council provided a link to its website which showed where the information is displayed.
• Checks on a person’s identification are managed locally. The Council was sorry Mr X had not previously been asked for a permit or proof of his address.
• Staff on the site had been spoken to. The Council could not share the outcome of these discussions, but Mr X's concerns had been taken seriously.
• The Council provides a permit free of charge if applied for. This was more cost effective than sending one to every resident. Mr X had now applied for and received a permit.
• The Council could not find any CCTV which showed Mr X’s visit.

Assessment

7. We do not investigate every case we receive. We need to consider the likelihood of finding fault, the alleged injustice, what an investigation could achieve, and if another body is better placed to consider the complaint.
8. I understand how frustrating it must have been for Mr X to be turned away from the HWRC. But it is for the Council to decide how its HWRC operates and if it requires proof of residency in Wakefield. This is something the Council does require, and it is entitled to operate such a policy. Details are contained on the Council’s website and on signs at the HWRC. The Council is not therefore at fault by requiring visitors to its HWRC to provide a permit of proof of residency. Mr X says he has never been asked for such information before. But this simply means Mr X has been able to use the HWRC as he intended. If the Council has previously failed to ask for proof or residency or a permit, then it has not caused Mr X any injustice.
9. I understand Mr X was upset a member of staff was not wearing a face mask and was within one metre of him. I was not there at the time so cannot comment on exactly what happened. But the incident took place outside, and fortunately, there is no suggestion Mr X caught COVID-19 because of what happened. The Council says it has spoken to the member of staff concerned and we would not expect it to disclose the exact actions taken to Mr X. Based on the information available there is not enough injustice from this point to Mr X to warrant an investigation.
10. I know Mr X is unhappy with how his request for CCTV footage was dealt with and that staff at the HWRC could not explain how his personal data was handled. But I am not persuaded there is enough injustice to Mr X from these points for us to investigate. Also, if Mr X has concerns about how the Council handles personal data, he can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office. It is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such matters.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman