Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of reopening its recycling centre after lockdown. This is because it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complains the Council:

• failed to adequately plan and implement a revised process for resuming access to its recycling centre after the COVID-19 lockdown,
• failed to address most of the specific details in his complaint,
• failed to consider his medical conditions in line with the public sector equality duty.

Mr B says this caused delay, anxiety, and distress.

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 or continue with an investigation if we believe 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 have considered the information provided by Mr B and the Councils responses. I also considered Mr X’s comments on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council temporarily closed its recycling centre during the COVID-19 lockdown. In May 2020 it was able to reopen and updated its website with its changed process. Its website stated residents are required to book a time slot to access the centre. It also asked for residents’ patience as the number of cars allowed at the centre would be restricted to adhere to the safety rules in place during COVID-19.
5. Mr B booked an appointment for the first day the recycling centre opened. He says he attempted to access the centre several times on the day but was unable to do so as the centre was very busy. Mr B returned home and called the Council. He was informed that as long as he had an appointment, he would not be refused access.
6. Mr B returned the following day and was refused access as he did not have a valid appointment for that day. Mr B complained to the Council. He says the Council grossly miscalculated the uptake for the centre and failed to take appropriate steps to limit the impact on him. He was also unhappy about the Council’s staff who refused his access to the centre.
7. In response the Council confirmed its staff had correctly informed Mr B about its policy for day bookings. It also said it was correct to refuse Mr B access the following day as he did not hold a booking for that day. As a courtesy the Council offered Mr B to waive the one month wait to book access to the centre. It also told Mr B it had made changes to its appointment slots to limit queuing and long waits following the feedback received.
8. Mr B was unhappy with the Council’s response and escalated his complaint. He added his dissatisfaction about how the staff members at the centre dealt with him. The Council did not change its decision but told Mr B it would remind staff of the expected standards whilst on site.
9. Mr B was unhappy with the Council’s final response. He told the Council he could not wait for long periods at the centre due to his medical condition. Mr B says the Council failed to accommodate his needs. He also said it failed to address other specific details in his complaint.
10. During our assessment of this complaint, the Council confirmed its internal procedures in place to accommodate special circumstances such as Mr B’s. However, the Council said Mr B did not tell it about his medical conditions in his attempts to access the site nor during its complaints process.

Assessment

11. I understand Mr B’s frustrations from his attempts to access to recycling centre on the day of his appointment. However, the Council’s website informed Mr B about the restrictions in place due to COVID-19 and asked residents to be patient. It did not guarantee immediate access to the site with an appointment. The Council considered the feedback received about its booking system for the centre and has subsequently made changes to limit queuing and waiting times.
12. The Council did respond to Mr B’s complaint, although I accept it was not in the depth he expected. However, it is not our role to get a response to each and every criticism he has of the Council.
13. In addition, I have seen no evidence Mr X disclosed his medical conditions to the Council until after it had completed its complaints process. If Mr X had disclosed his medical conditions, I am satisfied the Council has procedures in place to consider such requests.
14. For these reasons, the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman