Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a van permit scheme for the waste and recycling centres. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and the complainant could complain to the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s van permit scheme to use the Waste and Recycling Centres (the centres). He is unhappy that he is restricted to 12 visits a year and does not want to provide copies of his V5 or driver’s licence. He wants the Council to remove the visit limit and not keep copies of the documents.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and information about the permit scheme. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

5. People can use the centres for free disposal of domestic waste. To help stop traders abusing the centres the Council requires people who drive some vans to apply for a free permit. The permit gives 12 visits a year. People can apply on-line or by post and must provide two pages of the V5 and a copy of their driver’s licence.
6. Mr X complained about the restriction and the requirement to provide the V5 and licence. In response the Council explained why it had introduced a permit system and said it had taken steps to ensure the data is secure. It said the system had been introduced in consultation with its data protection officer, that only a limited number of officers can see the data, and the documents are deleted after two months. The Council said it cannot process applications in person so it cannot just view the documents as Mr X suggested.
7. Mr X disagrees with the decision to restrict his access to 12 visits a year due to the vehicle he drives. He says he does not have access to the centres because he does not wish to provide the documents.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. We are not an appeal body and cannot tell councils what systems to have or how those systems should work. The Council has explained why it has a permit system and the steps it takes to keep data secure. Mr X disagrees with the permit system but that disagreement does not mean the Council has done anything wrong or that we need to start an investigation.
9. In addition, if Mr X remains of the view that the Council will not keep his data safe, then he can complain to the ICO. It is reasonable to expect him to do that because the ICO is the appropriate body to consider complaints about data handling.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Mr X could contact the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman