The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that security guards at the recycling centre do not display their ID badges. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council makes him show ID to use the recycling centre but the security guards do not wear their ID badges. Mr X says he should not have to show ID if the guards do not display their licences. Mr X says the guards are continuing not to display their badges.
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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
Licensed security guards are required to wear their ID badge when on duty.
The Council says people must show some ID when they use the recycling centre. This is to stop unauthorised use by traders or by people who live in other council areas.
Mr X complained to the Council that a security guard was not wearing his badge. He also objected to having to show ID. When Mr X visited the site he showed ID and used the site.
The Council said all the guards are required to wear ID badges. It said the guard had reported he had been wearing his badge and offered to give Mr X his badge number. The Council said it could not see from the CCTV if he was wearing his badge. The Council told Mr X it had reminded the contractor of the need to ensure all guards display their badges. The Council did a spot check and found the guards were wearing ID. The Council explained it holds review meetings with the contractor and will do further monitoring and visits.
The Council explained to Mr X why users are required to show ID when using the site and said that people who do not show ID are refused entry.
Mr X says he visited the site again in April and a guard was not displaying his licence. Mr X reports the guard said the badge was in his wallet.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I do not know if the guards normally display their badges but the Council has responded appropriately by confirming it is a requirement, reminding the contractor, doing a visit and explaining there will be on-going monitoring.
I also will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. Although Mr X says the guard he spoke to was not wearing a badge, this has not had any impact on Mr X and he was able to use the site. And, while it is a requirement for guards to display their licence, there is no suggestion the contractor/Council is using unlicensed guards. In addition, the Council has explained why Mr X is required to show ID when he uses the site.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman