Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council manages its recycling centre. This is because there are other bodies better placed to consider Mr X’s concerns, we would not be able to add to the Council’s response and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council manages its recycling centre. He said his car has been damaged when he visits the recycling centre. Mr X also said the Council poorly responded to his complaint. He wants the Council to clean up 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 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X said his car has been damaged several times when he has visited the Council’s recycling centre. He said this has been caused by rubbish left on the roads. Mr X said staff working at the recycling centre do not keep the area clean and instead, they are using their personal phones.
6. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and said:
• visitors visiting the recycling centre do at times leave debris on the roads and paths. Staff aim to clear the debris as soon as possible. Furthermore, the Council regularly maintains the area and uses various methods to do so; and
• it provides electronic devices to staff to support them with their role.
7. The Council provided Mr X with details if he wanted to submit a claim for damages he alleged was caused by the Council.
8. In his complaint to us, Mr X provided images of debris being present in the recycling centre. We reviewed these images however, we cannot establish whether the damage to Mr X’s car was directly caused by the debris. Where there is a question of liability for damages, such matters can only be determined by specialist insurers or the courts. We note Mr X said he did not want to pursue the Council for damages however, we cannot say whether the Council was liable. It is open to Mr X to pursue liability for damages via the insurers or the courts.
9. Mr X wants the Council to keep the area tidy. The Council explained to Mr X the actions it takes to keep the area clear of debris. It has explained why staff have devices. We would not be able to add to the Council’s response.
10. In addition, Mr X said the Council’s response was not provided to him on letter-headed paper however, there is no requirement for the Council to provide responses on letter-headed paper.
11. For the reasons stated above, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there are other bodies better placed to consider his concerns, we would not be able to add to the Council’s response and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman