The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refuse and recycling centre denying him access to its services in a box van he hired. This is because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s refuse and recycling centre. Mr X said the Council told him he could attend with a hired box van, but when he attended the waste and recycling centre told him he could not use the van. Mr X also complained about delays in the Council’s complaints process.
Mr X said the matter caused him distress.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. Although Mr X was frustrated by the Council’s decision that he could not use the van to dispose of his waste, the cost of the hire van was £100. This is not a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman, and so we will not investigate this complaint.
Mr X also complained about delays in the complaints process. It is not a good use of public money to investigate complaints about complaints processes where we are not investigating the substantive matter. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman