Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s proposal and decision to introduce a booking system for access to its Household Waste Recycling Centres. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s proposal and decision to introduce a booking system for access to its Household Waste Recycling Centres.

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 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))
3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X complained to the Council about its proposal to introduce a booking system for access to its Household Waste Recycling Centres. Mrs X said the timeframe for responding to the proposal was minimal and she was not aware of it at the time. She said the proposed change was not what most residents wanted and explained why she disagreed with the reasons the Council gave for introducing a booking system.
7. The Council said its public consultation process ran for 8 weeks; was well publicised and received a good response level. It explained that in making its decision to put the booking scheme in place it considered numerous factors including budgetary pressures; public benefits of the scheme and evidence from other authorities. It said the booking system would help manage queues at the sites; help improve operations and safety; prevent traders from illegally tipping commercial waste and ensure only Council residents have access to the sites free of charge. It also carried out an Equality Impact Assessment and ensured that bookings could be made by phone as well as online. It addressed and answered Mrs X’s concerns about data use; possible future charges and the risk of increased fly tipping.
8. The booking system was put in place in November 2025.
9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because, whilst I acknowledge Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s decision, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. It is a matter for the Council to decide how best to manage access to its recycling centres. It has explained the reasons for its decision and the process by which its decision was made.
10. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council’s decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation has followed to make its decision. There is no sign of fault in how the Council made its decision and so we cannot question it even though Mrs X disagrees with it.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs 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