Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s updated policy on access to its household recycling centres. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained about the Council’s updated policy on access to its household recycling centres.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Mr X has had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making my final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X told us the Council’s Commercial Vehicle and Trailer (CVT) permits policy previously had no requirement for the vehicle used to be registered to the property applying for the permit. He said since its policy change this option is no longer available and nominated vehicles now have to be registered to the property applying for the permit. Mr X said this change of policy means he can no longer help his family members, one of whom is disabled, to take large waste to the recycling centre with his vehicle. Mr X wants the Council to change the policy.
7. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint. It said it had applied its policy appropriately but an investigation would not be able to change an existing council approved policy. Mr X said he feels the new policy is discriminatory and does not comply with the Equality Act 2010. He said the policy must be at fault.
8. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants by investigating his complaint. This is because the Council has reached a policy decision and we have no powers to overrule this and to order it to implement the remedy Mr X wants. A court of law is the appropriate body to rule on whether the Council’s terms and conditions comply with the law.
9. In this case the Council considered Mr X’s individual circumstances and sent him six permits to the cover the rest of the year so he could help his family member. The Council did this on a discretionary basis because Mr X had not been aware of its updated policy. Mr X told us the Council sent him six permits as his family member had to move home and had many bulky items to recycle.
10. We can look at whether the Council has considered its duties under the Equality Act. The Council has considered the circumstances in this case and reached a discretionary decision which should have helped Mr X’s family member. People in the Council’s area can take items to the recycling centre in cars and small trailers without a permit. We would expect the Council to consider exercising discretion in the future should a person with disabilities be affected in a similar way to Mr X’s family member. But we would not investigate a complaint about something which has not yet happened.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman