Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about access to the household waste recycling centre because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, and even if there was any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council refused access to the waste recycling centre because it says he used his annual visits. Mr B says as he has two properties he should have double the amount of visits. Mr B is storing up waste in his garage and says it is a trip hazard. Mr B is frustrated and says his wife is stressed by the situation and has developed an illness possibly caused by the stress.

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:

• 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council has rules for visiting its household waste recycling centre. Residents are restricted to one visit per day, a maximum of three visits per week, and a maximum of 26 visits per year. Vans and cars towing trailers are restricted to a maximum of 13 visits per year.
6. In 2022 the Council says Mr B booked 23 visits, 12 of which were booked as including a van or trailer. Therefore, he had used his allowance and was no longer allowed to visit the waste recycling centre in the latter half of the year.
7. Mr B disputes this because he says he has not used a trailer. It is unlikely the Ombudsman will find evidence of fault if the Council’s records show Mr B made bookings for a van or trailer, even if he did not then use one.
8. Mr B argues he should be allowed more visits because he has more than one property to dispose of waste from. However, the Council rules are per resident rather than per property and so it is unlikely the Ombudsman will find evidence of fault in the Council’s decision Mr B had used his allowed visits last year.
9. Although Mr B says he had to store his waste I do not consider that is a significant injustice that would warrant an Ombudsman investigation. There are other ways to dispose of excess household waste other than the waste recycling centre, such as using a skip or a waste removal company. It was Mr B’s choice to store the rubbish to dispose of once he could re-enter the waste recycling centre and dispose of it at no cost. Which he can now do.
10. Mr B says the situation caused stress to his wife which might have resulted in her developing an illness; it is unlikely the Ombudsman would find Mrs B’s illness was solely caused by the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, and even if there was any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman