Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about access to the Council’s household waste recycling centres via its van permit scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains her access to the Council’s household waste recycling centre is limited to 12 visits per year due to its van permit scheme. She says the scheme causes more flytipping and pollution and she has to make additional trips to dispose of her waste. Ms X says her van, which is crated for her dogs, carries far less than most cars do. The scheme, combined with 3 weekly waste collection and fortnightly recycling collections means she is being treated unfairly with no reduction in her Council Tax payments. Ms X says that as a Council Tax payer there should be no restrictions placed on how often she can visit the recycling centre.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X complained to the Council about her access to its household waste recycling centre being limited to 12 visits per year in line with its van permit system.
8. The Council has a van permit system in place for access to its household waste recycling centres. It introduced this system in order to tackle issues around the abuse of its facilities by commercial firms and businesses disposing of their waste at public expense; to improve site safety and reduce waiting times.
9. In its complaint response, the Council explained the reasons for implementing the scheme and said it considers 12 van visits per year is sufficient for private residents. It also explained the 12 visit limit is designed to encourage residents producing large amounts of waste to consider waste reduction, re-use and methods such as home composting. It provided Miss X with signposting information on alternative methods available to dispose of her waste.
10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because, whilst I acknowledge Ms X does not agree with the Council’s policy, there is no sign of fault by the Council here. It is acting in line with its policy. It is a matter for the Council to decide how to best manage access to its recycling centres. The policy and the reasons for the policy are clearly published on the Council’s website, it has acted in line with this and it has clearly explained it to Ms X.
11. We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to say the Council should have a different policy in place which would better suit Ms X’s circumstances.
12. Whilst I note Ms X’s comments about being a Council Tax payer, Council Tax is a local property tax not a service charge. Payment of Council Tax does not entitle a resident access to any particular service the Council provides for its residents. What is relevant is whether it is acting in line with its published policy.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman