The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a 12 visit limit on vans visiting the recycling centres. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains he can only take waste to the recycling centre 12 times a year because he drives a van. Mr X wants the 12 visit limit removed.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.
My assessment
People can take household waste to the recycling centres; there is no charge. People who want to dispose of commercial waste must use commercial waste sites and pay a charge. Some people try to abuse the system by taking commercial waste to the household centres. To try to prevent this the Council requires drivers of certain vans to have a permit. The permit is free and provides for 12 visits a year.
Mr X drives a van and complains he is restricted to 12 visits a year. He says the Council is discriminating against van drivers and limiting his freedom to use a facility he pays for.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council’s decision that Mr X must use the permit system is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. Mr X may disagree with the policy but that does not mean the Council has done anything wrong. We do not act as an appeal body and cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.
The current policy limits permit holders to 12 visits a year. This is the policy set by the Council. We have no power to set or change the policy. If Mr X thinks the policy should be changed then he would need to lobby for a change in the policy, perhaps through his local councillors. It would be for the Council, not us, to decide whether to change the policy.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we could not achieve the outcome Mr X would like.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman