Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the arrangements for disposing of a tumble dryer at the Council’s household waste recycling centre. This is because the matter complained about has not caused him any significant personal injustice which is serious enough to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that when he attended the Council’s household waste recycling centre to dispose of his tumble dryer he needed to lift it over a one metre bar, which he says was annoying and not very safe. He also complains the recycling centre does not separate the plastic and metal components in the appliances before crushing them.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council that when he visited the Council’s household waste recycling centre to dispose of a tumble dryer, he had to lift the tumble dryer over a bar that was approximately one metre tall to dispose of it in a skip. He found the experience annoying and unsafe. Workers on site offered to help him but he had already disposed of it. Mr X says the onus should not be on him to request help from the site workers. He did not know that assistance could be provided. He disagrees with the Council’s view that no changes are needed.
7. In response, the Council noted Mr X had very quickly disposed of the item himself in just over a minute. It explained it had a hydraulic lift on site, operated by its staff, which can be used to dispose safely of large domestic appliances, but that it needs to be given the opportunity to provide such assistance. There are signs displayed at the site advising users to ask an attendant if they need assistance, but Mr X did not ask for help. It explained it would not make changes to the height of the existing safety barriers and railings as they are at that height to comply with the relevant regulations.
8. In response to Mr X’s complaint about it not separating out the components of appliances it explained that this is not carried out at its recycling centres which is the first stage of the recycling process. The waste is sent on to specialist facilities where further separation is carried out.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the matter complained about did not cause Mr X any significant personal injustice which is so serious that it warrants the use of limited public funds to carry out an investigation. We do not investigate every complaint we receive and we must focus our limited public resources on considering those complaints where the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice as a direct result of fault by the body complained about. This is not the case here.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the matter has not caused him any significant personal injustice which is serious enough to warrant a further investigation by this office.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman