Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to accept a district council parking permit as acceptable proof to allow access to the Household Waste and Recycling sites. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council would not accept his district council parking permit as evidence that he lives within West Sussex and is allowed to use the Household Waste and Recycling Sites (the sites).

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 the Council’s response. I considered information on the Council’s website about acceptable identification. I also considered information on the district council’s website. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Access to the sites

4. Since December 2019 residents have been required to show ID when they visit a site. The Council website lists the acceptable forms of ID which includes the council tax bill, utility bills, driving licence or disabled parking permit. The list of acceptable ID does not include parking permits issued by district councils. The website says that other forms of ID will not be accepted and that people who do not have an accepted form of ID will be refused access.

District council website

5. The website says that parking permits are available for residents, non-residents, visitors and healthcare workers.

What happened

6. Mr X tried to use one of the sites. He presented his parking permit issued by a district council. The Council refused access because he had not presented one of the accepted forms of ID.
7. Mr X complained. In response the Council explained the ID evidence requirements and the reasons why the Council decided to introduce the identity requirements.
8. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s policy. He says the parking permit is only issued to people who live within West Sussex. He says he had a 15 mile wasted trip to the site. Having seen a draft of this decision Mr X says it would have been helpful if the Council had explained why it does not accept district council permits.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X did not present one of the accepted forms of ID when he tried to use the site. The Council’s decision to refuse entry was consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.
10. Mr X says the Council should accept parking permits issued by his district council. However, it is for the Council, not the Ombudsman, to decide how its scheme will work. Mr X would need to lobby county councillors for a change to the policy to allow other forms of ID. That said, Mr X says he now understands that the parking permits are unacceptable because they can be bought by non-residents.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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