Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an incident at a waste and recycling centre. This is because it is unlikely he could add to the Council’s response or that an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says staff at the waste and recycling centre threated and abused him after he pointed out inconsistencies in the Council’s approach to asbestos.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we believe:

• 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s response. I got an update from the Council about improved signs. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. Mr X visited the waste and recycling centre in April. He says he deposited unwrapped asbestos and paid a £50 fee.
5. Mr X visited in July. He tried to deposit what he believed was an asbestos free material. Mr X says staff aggressively insisted the material was asbestos and must be double-wrapped. Mr X says staff called him a liar, were threatening, and could not show him any signs saying asbestos must be wrapped. Mr X says an officer wrongly accused him of being aggressive and demanded Mr X leave. Mr X says he was being critical not aggressive and would never use the language ascribed to him.
6. Conversely, staff state they decided the material was asbestos and must be wrapped. They state they told Mr X he must wrap the waste before depositing it. They report Mr X was abusive and referred to staff as “scumbags, lowlife and jobsworths”. The Council says Mr X returned the waste to his car.
7. Mr X returned a few days later. The Council says an officer approached Mr X to discuss what had happened the previous week. The Council says Mr X became sarcastic and threatened to have people sacked. Mr X denies any inappropriate behaviour on his part and says all the abuse came from staff.
8. Mr X complained in July. The Council lost his complaint due to the introduction of a new complaint handling system. The Council responded in October. It apologised for the delay. It explained it should not have accepted unwrapped asbestos in April as there are strict rules surrounding the handling of asbestos. It said staff were correct to approach him in July as they thought he was dumping unwrapped asbestos. The Council apologised because Mr X felt the approach used by staff was intimidating and insensitive. It said it was not helpful for staff to try to discuss events several days after they occurred. It agreed there was a lack of signs and said it would arrange for them to be installed. It said it would introduce a new system for complaint handling at the centre. The Council agreed the visits could have been handled better and offered sincere apologies. The Council has put up new signs.
9. The Council offered to consider Mr X’s complaint further. Mr X did not want to engage and says the Council was harassing him.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation because it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome. Mr X says he was threatened and abused and experienced a lack of consistency in the Council’s handling of asbestos. Although staff have different views about what happened the Council has accepted it could have handled events better, should not have accepted unwrapped waste in April and it has apologised to Mr X. It has put up new signs and will improve the on-site complaint handling. I did not witness the events so I could not resolve the different views about what happened and whether anybody used inappropriate language. But, as the Council has apologised, and taken steps to improve procedures, it is unlikely I would be able to add to the Council’s response.
11. Mr X wants the Heath Safety Executive (HSE) informed. That is something Mr X can do and does not require input from the Ombudsman. In addition, the HSE mainly considers complaints from employees about safety in the workplace. Mr X does not work for the Council so the HSE may not be an appropriate body to consider what happen.
12. Mr X suggests the delay in dealing with his complaint was an attempted cover-up because the Council mishandled toxic waste. There is nothing to support this view and the Council has explained it lost the complaint during the introduction of a new system.
13. Mr X says the Council harassed him. However, the Council contacted him to explore progressing the complaint to the next stage of the complaints process. This is not harassment and the Ombudsman usually expects people to complete the Council’s complaints process.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not start an investigation because it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman