Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant cannot have a permit to use the waste and recycling centre. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision not to issue any more permits so he can use the waste and recycling centre.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and information about who can use the recycling centre. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Some commercial type vehicles need a permit to use the recycling centre. Some vehicles, including flatbeds, are not allowed to use the centre.
5. Mr X drives a flatbed van. He has had two permits which allowed him to take waste to the centre in his van. However, when he applied for a permit in April it was refused.
6. The Council explained that his van is not one that is allowed to have a permit. It directed Mr X to its website where the rules on permitted vans are explained. It said it cannot treat Mr X as an exception because that could lead to challenges from other people who have had permits refused. The Council confirmed it cannot issue a permit for Mr X’s van. It said it had corrected a problem with the booking system which had allowed him to get permits in the past.
7. The Council previously made an error because it issued two permits for a vehicle which is not allowed to use the site. But, this has not caused an injustice requiring an investigation because it meant Mr X was able to use the van to deposit waste.
8. The Council has now corrected the error which means Mr X can no longer get a permit. This is the correct decision because flatbed vehicles are not permitted to use the centres. I appreciate Mr X disagrees but the decision is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.
9. We are not an appeal body and we cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with. And, we cannot change the rules. If Mr X thinks flatbeds should be allowed a permit he would need to ask the Council, perhaps through his local councillors, to change the rules. But, it would be for the Council, not us, to decide if the rules should change.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman