Summary: There is no fault in the way the Authority made reasonable adjustments for Mr X and his wife in order to be able to deposit waste at its household recycling centres.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Authority failed to make reasonable adjustments for himself and his wife when he tried to dispose of waste at a recycling centre. Mr X says the Authority’s contractor told him it would assist him disposing of waste but then refused to do so when he later attended the centre to do so. Mr X says the Authority’s contractor was abusive and threatening towards him and later made false statements about his conduct to a local Councillor.
2. Mr X says he and friends are carrying out essential adaptations to his wife’s property and his inability to dispose of waste is causing significant delays in being able to complete this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an authority’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an authority’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have spoken to Mr X about his complaint and considered the evidence he provided to the Ombudsman. I have also included the Council’s response to my enquiries which includes correspondence with its contractor and its equality and diversity policies.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Equality Act 2010

7. The Equality Act 2010 says an individual or organisation that provides a service to the public, such as local authorities, must not treat someone worse just because of one or more “protected characteristics”. Protected characteristics include people with disabilities including mobility issues.
8. The law says an organisation must not do something to someone in a way that has a worse impact on them and other people who share a particular protected characteristic than it has on people who do not share that characteristic.
9. Service providers must not treat disabled people unfavourably because of something connected to their disability where they cannot show that what they are doing is objectively justified.
10. To make sure that a disabled person can use the service as far as is reasonable to the same standard as a non-disabled person the service provider must make reasonable adjustments.
11. A service provider is not allowed to wait until a disabled person wants to use its services, but must think in advance about what people with a range of impairments might reasonably need. They should consider the needs of people who have a visual impairment, a hearing impairment, a mobility impairment, a learning disability, for example.
12. Government guidance “Equality Act 2010: Summary Guidance on Services, Public Functions and Associations” sets out “factors which might be taking into account when considering what is reasonable”. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list:
• Whether taking particular steps would be effective in overcoming the substantial disadvantage that disabled people face in accessing the services in question.
• The extent to which it is practicable for the service provider to take the steps.
• The financial and other costs of making the adjustment.
• The extent of any disruption which taking the steps would cause.
• The extent of the service providers’ financial and other resources.
• The amount of any resources already spent on making adjustments.
• The availability of financial and other assistance.
13. The guidance also says:

“Where a person has used the service provider’s services before, it will be unlawful to discriminate against them… if the actions of the service provider arise out of and are closely connected to the relationship that used to exist between them”.

14. If a person believes they have been discriminated against as a result of the actions of a service provider, they may make a claim for damages in county court. However, government guidance says:

“Defending or taking a claim in court can be lengthy, expensive and draining. It can also have a damaging impact on the reputation of an organisation. It is likely to be in everyone’s interest to try to put things right before a claim is made to a court”.

What happened

Background

15. Mr X’s wife is severely disabled. This affects her mobility and her ability to communicate.
16. Mr X says he and his friends have been carrying out work to his wife’s property for a number of years in order to make it accessible for her. He says this has resulted in a large amount of building waste accumulating in her front garden.
17. Mr X says his wife currently has no kitchen or downstairs toilet. Mr X does not live with his wife but he provides care for her.
18. Mr X also has health issues which affect his ability to carry out strenuous tasks such as heavy lifting.
19. Mr X says the Authority has failed to make reasonable adjustments for his wife to allow for the disposal of the building waste at its recycling centres. He is complaining on behalf of his wife. As Mr X also has health concerns which affect his ability to carry out some tasks he would also be able to request that the Authority make reasonable adjustments for him. Therefore, I have considered how both Mr X and his wife have been treated by the Authority.

What happened

20. Mr X says he has attended the Authority’s waste recycling centres with building waste from the work carried out at his wife’s home. He takes the waste to the recycling centre in a trailer.
21. Mr X says he has previously been able to deposit waste on flat ground at one of the Authority’s recycling centres rather than placing it in one of the on site waste containers. The Authority’s contractor had previously written to Mr X to say it could provide assistance in unloading waste but this was not always possible at busy times.
22. Mr X says when he has tried to access one of the Authority’s recycling centres he has been told that staff will not assist in unloading waste. He says when he insisted staff would sometimes assist under duress but he found their behaviour intimidating.
23. Mr X says the Authority’s contractor has questioned him about how he was able to load the trailer before arriving on the site and has asked to visit his property to inspect the waste he is trying to dispose of. Mr X says the Authority and the contractor cannot ask these questions under the Equality Act 2010. He says assistance available to a person is not a relevant consideration.
24. Mr X says the Authority’s contractor told a local councillor that he was banned from all recycling centres and that he had forged a letter stating he could deposit waste on flat ground.
25. The Authority says Mr X wanted to dispose of waste in an area which was unsuitable due to health and safety grounds. The Authority says the area in question receives frequent deliveries of waste from large vehicles. The Authority also says that depositing waste of this type is not permitted in that area under the Authority’s Environmental Permit which is issued by the Environment Agency. The Permit states specific areas where particular types of waste must be deposited.
26. The Authority accepts Mr X may have been able to deposit waste on this site previously but this practice has since been stopped for the reasons set out above.
27. The Authority says Mr X has been advised he can visit a neighbouring site which is more suitable for depositing domestic waste. The Authority has advised Mr X that assistance may be available at these sites when it is not busy. The Authority says staff have a number of duties to perform to ensure users are safe and using the facility correctly and so it may not be able to provide assistance at busy times. It has advised Mr X to contact its sites in advance to check whether assistance was available.

My findings

28. There is no fault in how the Authority, or its contractors have dealt with Mr X’s request for assistance for himself and his wife. The Authority is entitled to ask questions to be able to reach a decision on what reasonable adjustments it can offer. This would include how a person managed to get waste to a site and what other assistance might be open to them.
29. The Authority is entitled to take account of its resources and any disruption making any reasonable adjustments might have on delivering its services. Therefore there is no fault in the Authority advising Mr X to phone in advance to ensure assistance was available and there was no fault in it preventing him from depositing waste in an unsafe area due to health and safety concerns.
30. The Authority has advised Mr X that assistance is available and how to access this. Therefore, there is no fault in how the Authority has considered what adjustments it should make to allow Mr X and his wife to access its services at its recycling centres.
31. I have seen no evidence the Authority’s contractor accused him of forging a letter. That does not mean that the accusation was not made but in the absence of any evidence to support Mr X’s claims I cannot make a finding either way about what happened. I have also not seen evidence the Authority or its contractors told Mr X’s local councillor he was banned form its recycling centres.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation as I have found no evidence of fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman