Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about events at a household reuse and recycling centre. There is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation and any investigation is unlikely to reach a clear enough view about what happened.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains staff did not act properly when she visited a household reuse and recycling centre. She says this caused anxiety, stress and inconvenience and the Council did not collect the items she was seeking to dispose of.

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. The Ombudsman investigates 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. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy complaint correspondence from the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. To reduce the risk of COVID-19 spreading, the Council has a booking system for visits to its household reuse and recycling centre. It states that, if the centre is not busy, people can enter without an appointment if they have identification showing they live in the borough. Ms X was unaware of the arrangements and drove to the centre without an appointment.
7. Ms X and the Council disagree about whether staff at the centre breached social distancing guidance when they approached Ms X’s open car window. The Council apologised if the distance made Ms X uncomfortable. Given the lack of independent evidence, I would not be able to reach a clear enough view about this. Also, while I appreciate Ms X might have been alarmed at the time if she thought social distancing was being breached, I do not consider that is a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.
8. Ms X left without using the site, she says because she understood from staff that she could not use the site without an appointment. Ms X and the Council have also given contrasting versions of the exchanges and whether staff were impolite, including whether staff explained that, if Ms X had identification showing she lived in the Council’s area, she could use the centre without an appointment. The Council has apologised if staff did not properly explain this and if Ms X felt staff were not polite. The Council also states it has reminded staff of their responsibilities.
9. Again, I do not expect an investigation would enable us to reach a clear enough view about what was said or how it was said. I appreciate why Ms X feels she had a wasted journey without being able to use the centre. However, that in itself does not amount to a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.
10. Moreover, even if there was enough evidence to allow us to decide the Council was at fault on the above points, we would be unlikely to recommend more than the apology and reminder to staff that the Council has already provided. For this reason also, I shall not investigate the complaint.
11. Ms X is dissatisfied the Council did not collect her items as she had not been able to use the centre. For the reasons given above, we shall not investigate whether the Council was at fault for Ms X not using the centre. Therefore it would be disproportionate for us to consider this point.
12. Ms X wants the Council to remove the booking system, which she says other councils do not have. I understand some councils had booking systems at the relevant time, others did not. As I have not found the matters complained of caused Ms X a significant injustice, I shall not pursue this point.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation and because it is unlikely investigation would reach a clear enough view about what happened.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman