Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded after the complainant tried to use the recycling centre. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the Council has provided a proportionate response to some errors that did occur.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s response after he complained about a visit to the recycling centre. He says the Council made inaccurate comments and wrongly accused him of being irate. He disagrees with the reason for refusing to allow him to dispose of his waste.

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
• the Council has provided an appropriate response.

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

3. We cannot disclose information that is confidential to other people.

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 rules about using the recycling centre. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

5. People cannot use the recycling centre if their vehicle is longer than six metres. Drivers of some vehicles need to obtain a permit to use the centre.
6. Mr X tried to use the centre. He was not allowed to unload his waste because the van was longer than six metres and the registration did not match the registration on the permit. Mr X denies the registration details were wrong. Whilst on site Mr X tried to apply for a new permit but this was refused due to the length of the van.
7. Mr X complained about his treatment and being refused use of the site. In response the Council explained why he had not been allowed to unload and gave information about the registration on the permit not matching the licence of the van Mr X was driving on the day. It also referred to Mr X becoming irate and behaving aggressively on previous visits. The Council said Mr X then tried to take the waste to a different site.
8. In its second response the Council confirmed Mr X had correctly been refused use of the site and said the restrictions and permit requirements are partly linked to health and safety. The Council apologised because, while it has evidence the van later attended another site, it does not have evidence Mr X was driving. The Council said it should not have assumed Mr X was driving. The Council also apologised because there was not enough evidence to show Mr X had previously attended the site. The Council said it had correctly refused use of the site but apologised for the upset caused and the inaccurate comments.
9. Mr X denies he was irate and disagrees with many of the Council’s comments. He accepts the van may have been too long but says that is irrelevant and he denies there were any health and safety reasons preventing him unloading the van.
10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X agrees his van was longer than six metres and the Council correctly explained why he could not use the site. Regardless of any disagreement over the permit, Mr X could not use the site as the vehicle was too long. Mr X disagrees with the reason for the restrictions but that disagreement is not an indication of fault.
11. The Council made two inaccurate statements but they were corrected and an apology given. Mr X denies he was irate but I have read the complaint reports and find no suggestion of fault in the conclusions reached by the Council. I cannot share any information about these reports as they are confidential to other people. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy about what happened and the Council’s response but there is nothing to indicate we need to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the Council has provided a fair response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman