Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainants are ineligible for a voucher so they can use a van to take waste to the recycling centre. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the Council has offered a fair remedy for an error that did occur.

The complaint

1. The complainants, whom I refer to as Mr & Mrs X, complain the Council will not issue a voucher so they can take waste to the recycling centre in a van. They say it is the only vehicle they have which is suitable to transport waste. They are registered for council tax at two properties and say one vehicle could be registered to the other property.

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 offered a fair response.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. Some vehicles are excluded from the recycling centres. Some restricted vehicles can use the centres if the resident qualifies for a voucher. People can only qualify for a voucher if the restricted vehicle is the only vehicle in the household.
5. Mr & Mrs X applied for a voucher for a small van. They declared they own another vehicle. They said the van is the only vehicle which is suitable for transporting waste. They explained why their other vehicles are not suitable.
6. The Council rejected the application because the van is not the only vehicle in the household. Mr & Mrs X complained. They also said they pay council tax for two properties and they asked if a vehicle could be registered to another property. The Council confirmed they are ineligible for a voucher because the van is not their only vehicle. It offered a one-off voucher for single use. The Council did not answer the question about registering a vehicle to the other property.
7. The Council correctly refused the application because Mr & Mrs X have a van and at least one other vehicle. The decision to refuse a voucher is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. We do not act as an appeal body and we could not ask the Council to issue a voucher as that would be contrary to the policy.
8. The Council should have answered the query about whether an application could be made from a different address. The Council will write to Mr & Mrs X to apologise for this oversight. It will invite an application from a different address. It will then assess the new application on its merits to see if it qualifies. In the meantime, Mr & Mrs X can still accept the offer of a single use voucher. Although the Council failed to address the query about an application from the other property, the approach it proposes to take is a fair way to settle the complaint. If the complainants submit a new application it is important to stress the Council will only issue a voucher if the new application meets the rules.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault for part of the complaint and because the Council has proposed a fair remedy for the error that did occur.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman