Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council-run recycling centre refused entry to Mr X despite him holding a van permit, failed to provide any support or an alternative solution to dispose of their large household items and poorly handled their case. We ended our investigation into this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault causing a significant injustice. Additionally, we could not add to the Council’s investigation or achieve anything further.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained on behalf of Mr X. Mrs X complained the Council-run recycling centre refused entry to Mr X’s van due to vehicle height restrictions despite him holding a valid van permit. She complained it failed to provide support or an alternative solution to help dispose of the large household items in a different way. She also complained the Council’s customer service was dishonest, inadequate and failed to provide a solution to their situation.
2. Mrs X said as a result of not being able to dispose of soiled items quickly, they suffered embarrassment and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

4. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
5. When considering complaints we make decisions based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the relevant available evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Mrs X about her complaint and considered evidence she provided.
7. I considered relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

9. Councils have a legal obligation to provide their residents with a place to dispose of their household waste. These places are usually household waste recycling centres or HWRCs. This duty is established under Section 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

The Council’s policy

10. The Council publishes its Household waste recycling centres' (HWRCs) provision and usage policy on its website. The policy says:

• HWRCs have access restrictions regarding types of vehicles and their size for maneuverability, operational and health and safety reasons.
• The Council operates an e-permit scheme for vans under two metres high to manage the flow of traffic through its sites and to control illegal deposit of trade waste.
• Pedestrian access is not permitted on any of the Council’s HWRCs due to safety risks from the conflict of moving vehicles and people and the potential for abuse from uncontrolled access.

What happened

11. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
12. In December 2024 Mr and Mrs X needed to dispose of large household items at the Council’s Household waste recycling centre (HWRC). Mrs X applied for an online permit for Mr X’s van to facilitate this. She said she disclosed that their vehicle was over two metres in height in the online application form and was issued a permit.
13. Mrs X said Mr X was refused access to the HWRC due to the two metres height restriction despite possessing a valid permit. She said staff were dismissive of the permit. Mrs X also said Mr X was unable to access the site any other way - there was no footpath leading to the site, no staff assistance, trolleys or other facilities available to help dispose of the items on foot. Mrs X said as a result, Mr X was unable to dispose of the soiled items.
14. Mrs X felt the Council’s policy to refuse entry based on types of vehicles was unfair. She contacted the Council soon after to discuss the issue they faced and to gain clarity on the matter. She also said she faced problems in getting through to the correct department and when she got through, the Council’s customer service advisor was unhelpful, dishonest and offered no alternative solution to their situation.
15. In January 2025 Mrs X complained to the Council about being unable to access the HWRC and the difficulties she faced in contacting the Council to discuss the matter. She sought clarity on pedestrian access to the site and requested a change to the Council’s policy to allow better movement within the site for those in circumstances similar to hers.
16. In early February 2025 the Council issued a stage one complaint response. In it, the Council:

• reiterated its height restriction criteria for vans stating applicants must confirm that their vehicle is under the two metres limit in the online permit application form,
• explained the onsite staff could only assist within the boundary of the site and that trolleys were no longer in use due to health and safety reasons and the potential harm they could cause if not used correctly,
• reiterated that its HWRCs operated a no pedestrian access policy due to health and safety reasons and to protect from dangers of moving vehicles within the site. It clarified that the HWRC Mr X went to had no pedestrian access leading to the site - just designated walkways within the site for those who access it in vehicles and for its site operatives to walk and offer any assistance safely within the site,
• noted that while its policy had potential to cause inconvenience to some residents, its priority was to ensure safety of all users and its staff whilst on site,
• explained that holding a permit in itself did not guarantee entry to its HWRC – the permit’s purpose was to manage traffic and control illegal deposit of trade waste and that the Council required its site staff to use their discretion to challenge any potential wrongdoing, including non-adherence to its processes,
• confirmed that she was put through to the correct department, its customer service advisor offered the correct explanation regarding its policy on height restrictions and that no exceptions could be made for health and safety reasons. However, the Council acknowledged difficulties Mrs X faced in waiting to speak to an advisor and in getting through using its digital assistant system. The Council also acknowledged its advisor could have done more to discuss an appropriate solution for Mrs X in case of future occurrences,
• apologised for the experience Mr and Mrs X had in relation to its HWRC and customer service department. It explained that it had spoken to its customer service management team to ensure adequate solutions were explored going forward. It also stated that it would look to review and improve its digital assistant system for better clarity for its users.

17. Mrs X was dissatisfied with the Council’s response. She stated it had offered no alternative solution for residents with vehicles that exceeded the two metres height limit. She also remained unhappy that the Council had not apologised that its customer service advisor was dishonest during a call.
18. In late February 2025 the Council issued a stage two complaint response and reiterated that it would not amend its policy as noted in its stage one response.
19. Mrs X remained unhappy with the Council’s response and complained to us in March 2025. Mrs X told us she paid a third party to dispose of the waste and while the same situation had not happened since, it was possible that it would happen again.

Analysis

20. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources focussing on those claims of faults which have potential to have caused a significant injustice.
21. The Council’s published policy on pedestrian access to its recycling centres and its height restrictions is clear - it is not permissible for various reasons including safety. While Mrs X may not agree with the Council’s policies, it is a matter for the Council to decide its policy on access to its recycling centres. In Mrs X’s case, the Council applied its policy in line with its published criteria and it is unlikely I would find fault with the Council if I were to investigate this further.
22. Mrs X said she was able to obtain a permit despite stating that their vehicle was over two metres in height. On accessing the Council’s online application form for a permit and stating that a vehicle was over two metres high, I was unable to progress my application to obtain a vehicle permit. Therefore, I am satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, I am unlikely to find fault in the Council’s online permit system if I were to investigate this further.
23. The Council apologised for the experience Mr and Mrs X had with its customer services department. It spoke to the relevant department to prevent any future recurrence and proposed to review its digital assistant system for potential improvements. The Council’s actions were an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused and further investigation by us will not achieve anything more.

Back to top

Decision

24. I have ended my investigation as I am unlikely to find fault causing a significant injustice to justify investigating. Additionally, we could not add to the Council’s investigation or achieve anything further.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman