Summary: there was no fault in the information provided by the Council on the day Mr C attempted to use the domestic waste site or in the Council’s decision to refuse Mr C entry.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains that in April 2021 the Council wrongly refused him entry to its local domestic refuse site because it wrongly said he was using a tipper-truck. He says the Council’s staff considered his use of the truck meant that his waste was considered commercial and told him he had to take his refuse to a different site where he was charged a fee of £89 to dispose of it.
2. The injustice Mr C claims is that he was wrongly charged £89 to dispose of his refuse.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an organisation’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)
4. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the written information Mr C provided with his complaint and made written enquiries of the Council. I considered all the information before reaching a draft decision on it.
7. Mr C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

8. The policy in place at the time of Mr C’s visit to the waste site in April 2021 was agreed by the Council in December 2020. Information about the Council’s domestic recycling centres confirm they may be used:
• by residents with proof of address;
• for certain types of waste;
• by people using cars and other specified vehicles without a permit;
• by people using certain vans who have a van permit.
9. The Council’s van permit scheme aims to reduce the amount of commercial waste taken to its household recycling centres for disposal. The scheme states that van permits are issued free of charge to council residents who either have a van as their only vehicle in which case they are restricted to a maximum of six visits a year or who have a car and van in which case they are restricted to three visits a year. It specifies that vans requiring a permit include car-derived vans, single cab pick-ups and vans up to 3.5 tonnes excluding van types that are not allowed on the site at all.
10. The scheme states that vehicles that are not permitted to use household recycling centres at all include vans that are over 3.5 tonnes, and vans which are hired for more than three days, flatbed vans and tipper vehicles even if these are under 3.5 tonnes.

What happened

11. Mr C hired a flatbed van to take his domestic waste to the local refuse site in April 2021. He says the Council staff wrongly said he was using a tipper truck. Mr C argues that the Council’s website did not state that flatbed vans were not permitted in domestic refuse sites at any time so he hired the vehicle believing that, as he was disposing of household waste, he would be allowed on the site.
12. When Mr C arrived at the site however he was refused entry and directed to take his waste to a commercial disposal site where he had to pay £89 to do so.
13. Mr C says the Council’s website in April 2021 did not state that use of flatbed vehicles meant he could not use the domestic refuse site so the decision to refuse him entry and charge for disposal was wrong. Mr C has provided a screenshot copy of part of the relevant Council website page in April 2021. This does not include information at the bottom of that page which details that flatbed vans are prohibited regardless of size. The Council has provided a copy of the same page that was on its website in May 2021 which is the nearest date for which a copy of the page is now available. The page in May clearly reflects the policy as detailed in paragraphs 8 to 10 above and includes the information that flatbed vans are not permitted at any time.

Was the Council at fault?

14. The copy of the website page provided by the Council from May 2021 is an accurate reflection of the policy referred to above. The copy of the website page provided by Mr C from April 2021 is also an accurate but incomplete copy of that website page. On balance, I consider it seems likely that the website page was accurate and complete on the day Mr C checked it in April 2021 but that Mr C did not see the entirety to the page. As the information about flatbed vans was at the bottom of the page and is not included in the copy Mr C provided to us, it seems probable that Mr C simply missed the information at the bottom of the page possibly because it required him to scroll down in order to see it.
15. As I consider this to the case, I have no grounds to conclude there was fault by the Council in relation to the issues raised in this complaint or to ask the Council to reimburse the costs Mr C incurred in having to take his wate to the commercial site for disposal.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. There was no fault in the information provided by the Council on the day Mr C attempted to use the domestic waste site or in the Council’s decision to refuse Mr C entry.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman