Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about pedestrian access to a household waste and recycling centre. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to allow pedestrian access to the household waste and recycling centre. Mr X says the contractor is setting rules which are unnecessary and prevent people without a car from using the centre.

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, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 responses. I considered email exchanges between Mr X and the Council. 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 drove to the recycling centre. He tried to enter the site on foot. He was stopped by a member of staff who refused entry. Mr X says the contractor was rude and aggressive.
5. Mr X complained. In response the contractor explained that CCTV showed that Mr X tried to enter the site, on foot, through the exit. He was told this was not possible. Mr X then tried to enter via a different entrance. A member of staff stopped him again. Mr X then returned to his car. The contractor apologised for the way Mr X was treated by the staff member.
6. There were then a series of email exchanges. Mr X’s key points were that he does not accept there are good reasons to prevent foot access, especially as people can walk around inside the site. He says it is wrong for the contractors to set the rules and the rules prevent people without cars from using the centre. Mr X also said the Council was discriminating against people without cars.
7. In response the Council explained that foot access is prohibited because there are no safe walkways at the entrances and people could be injured. Conversely there are safe walkways within the site so people can walk from their cars to the bins. The Council explained that allowing foot access could lead to traffic congestion due to people parking around the entrance which could cause a hazard. The Council said the contractor sets policies to minimise risk and accidents and the Council’s health and safety officers have checked and approved the policies.
8. The Council explained the centre supplements the kerbside collections and not many people try to take waste to the centre on foot. It explained people without cars could use the bulky waste collection service or a ask a friend for help. The Council said it would try to help anyone who could not find an alternative. The Council denied it was discriminating against people because car ownership is not a protected characteristic.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons.
10. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council explained why the contractor does not allow pedestrian access and explained that the primary reason is to minimise risk and prevent accidents. It also explained that it has audited and approved the policy. Mr X disagrees but that is not an indication of fault. If Mr X thinks the Council should have a different access policy then he would need to lobby his councillors for a change in the policy. In addition, the Council is to correct to say that not owning a car is not covered by discrimination legislation.
11. I also will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. Mr X arrived in a car and can access the centre in his car. In addition, he is not complaining on behalf of an individual who claims to have suffered an injustice due to not having a car. The Council has also explained it would try to help people who could not find another way to get rid of their waste. Mr X says he is not getting value for money. However, he can use the site and also has the usual kerbside collections.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman