Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s waste recycling centre. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complained about the Council’s new online system for booking appointments at her local waste recycling centre. Miss X also complained staff at the recycling centre were often rude.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council has recently introduced an online booking system for its waste recycling centre. Miss X does not have access to the internet. This means Miss X has to call the Council’s contact centre for an appointment. Miss X says that when she attends her appointment, staff at the waste recycling centre are often not aware she has booked. Miss X says she is often asked for a reference number which she does not have. Miss X says staff at the recycling centre are often rude and argumentative. Miss X says she has mental health issues and has suggested the Council issue her with a card which would mean she does not have to pre-book appointments.
6. In response to Miss X’s complaint the Council explained why it introduced the new system. It said contact centre staff should send details of appointments as soon as they were made. It was investing in technology to help staff at the waste recycling centre have up to date details of appointments. The Council said it was disappointing staff had been rude. If Miss X could provide details, it would investigate.
7. I understand the issues at the heart of this complaint are important to Miss X, but we will not start an investigation.
8. It is for the Council to decide what system it operates for booking appointments at its waste recycling centre. The telephone system is an alternative for people who do not have access to the internet. The Council is looking to improve this further. There is not enough evidence of fault here for us to investigate. Miss X’s suggestion about a card so she does not need to pre-book is for the Council to consider.
9. The remaining issue is the attitude of staff at the waste recycling centre. This is obviously important, because if it was addressed, then the issue faced by Miss X would largely be resolved. But I was not there when any of the alleged incidents occurred. It is therefore unlikely we could reach a safe conclusion about whether staff were rude to Miss X. The Council has also offered to investigate if Miss X provides more information. It is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response or achieve anything more. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault, and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman