Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council has discriminated against the complainant by requiring him to have a permit to use the recycling centre. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has discriminated against him by requiring him to get a permit to take waste to the recycling centre. He wants the Council to change the policy or give him a council tax refund.

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 would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and Mr X’s emails to the Council. I considered the Council’s responses and the permit policy. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Permit policy

4. Since October 2019 people who take waste to the recycling centre in a commercial-type vehicle must get a permit. The permits are free and provide for 12 visits in each 12 month period. People who do not drive a commercial type vehicle do not have to get a permit and can make unlimited visits.

What happened

5. Mr X drives a commercial-type vehicle. He complained to the Council about the permit scheme. He says he is being discriminated against. He pays the same council tax as other drivers but is limited in the number of visits he can make to the recycling centre. He wants the Council to amend the policy or give him a council tax refund.
6. In response the Council explained that councillors had decided to introduce the policy to limit the rising costs of dealing with waste taken to the recycling centres. It said that the costs were increasing partly due to people taking commercial or building waste to the centres. It did a consultation exercise and 49% of the respondents supported the proposal and 28% agreed to some extent. It explained it had carried out a community impact assessment and no problems emerged. It said councillors had decided it was appropriate to limit commercial-type vehicles to 12 visits because they can carry more waste than non-commercial vehicles.

Assessment

7. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The policy says that people who drive a commercial-type vehicle must get a permit and visit no more than 12 times a year. Mr X drives a commercial-type vehicle so the Council’s decision that he must use the permit scheme is correct. In addition, the Council has explained why it introduced the scheme and why councillors decided it was fair to limit the visits. The Council introduced the policy in October based on a decision made by councillors in May. It is for the Council, not the Ombudsman, to decide what policies to adopt. If Mr X thinks the policy is wrong he will need to lobby councillors for a change of policy or give feedback for the review the Council is planning to do later in the year.
8. Mr X says he is being discriminated against. However, equalities legislation relates to treating people differently on the grounds of protected characteristics such as race, sexuality, religion, gender or disability. It does not apply to the type of vehicle someone owns. In addition, the Council did an assessment to make sure the policy did not breach equalities legislation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman