Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s policy on access to its waste and recycling centres. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint 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 will not allow pedestrian access to its waste and recycling centres. Mr X says this excludes those who have no access to a vehicle and he is unable to correctly dispose of some items.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 a council’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)
3. 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 we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained to the Council about its policy which prevents access to its Household Waste Recycling Centres by pedestrians.
6. The Council explained to Mr X that due to health and safety standards, and the limited space for vehicles to move safely around its generally small disposal sites, it requires those using the centres to access them in a vehicle and not on foot. It acknowledged that this might be inconvenient for Mr X and other households which do not have access to a vehicle and it set out other options as to how he might dispose of unwanted items.

Assessment

7. While I understand Mr X is frustrated that he is unable to access the waste disposal centres on foot, the Council has explained the rationale for its policy. The merits of this policy are not open to review by the Ombudsman no matter how strongly Mr X disagrees with it.
8. That there may be difficulties of access for those who do not own a vehicle does not mean there has been fault by the Council and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to find evidence of fault.
9. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says the Council’s policy is discriminatory and unreasonable and denies some people a service because the alternatives are unsuitable. He does not accept health and safety concerns as a reason to exclude pedestrians from the sites. However, while his disagreement with the Council’s policy is noted, it is not our role to review the merits of decisions or policies put in place by councils. It is acknowledged that people with no access to a vehicle cannot use the sites but this is not evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman