In 2006 a public representative drew my attention to the waste waiver scheme being operated by Waterford County Council. He made a complaint to my Office on behalf of a number of low-income householders who pleaded inability to pay the waste charges but did not qualify for relief under the Council’s waste waiver scheme. I subsequently received a further complaint directly from another householder in a similar position. These applicants had been refused a waiver of waste charges by the Council on the basis that the source of their income was not one of the forms of social welfare income listed in the Council’s waiver scheme. The complainants felt that this was unfair and inequitable.
Details of the Complaints
Details of the complaints received are as follows:
Complaint A
Ms A lives alone and was in receipt of an Invalidity Pension and a Social Welfare Living Alone Allowance giving her a total weekly income of €179. Her application for a waiver was refused because her income was not one of the Social Welfare incomes listed in the Council’s Scheme. However, had she been in receipt of a Non-Contributory Old Age Pension and the Living Alone Allowance she would have qualified for a waiver although her total weekly income would amount to €189.70 (€10.70 greater than her actual income).
Complaint B
Mr B was in receipt of Disability Benefit and his wife was on an Invalidity Pension. They were refused a waiver because such benefits are not listed in the Council’s Scheme. He was advised that if he had been in receipt of Disability Allowance, rather than Disability Benefit, he would have qualified. The complainant alleged that the Allowance and the Benefit are paid at the same weekly rate and, therefore, he could not understand why one payment was acceptable and the other not.
Complaint C
Ms C is a deserted wife in receipt of the One Parent Family Allowance of €185.80 per week. She was refused a waiver as this form of income is not listed in the Council’s Scheme. A person in receipt of the basic rate of Deserted Wife’s Benefit (€191.30 at that time) would, however, have qualified for a waiver.
In addition to the above complaints, I have in the past received complaints in relation to the terms of the waiver scheme being operated by Mayo County Council. However, this Council no longer provides a waste collection service and the service is now provided by private operators. In the course of preparing this report, I received correspondence from a woman, representing a Community Association in County Cork, concerning the failure of private operators to provide any relief for low-income households.
Waterford County Council’s Response to the complaints
My Office asked Waterford County Council (the Council) for a report on the complaints raised. In its reply the Council provided a copy of its Waste Waiver Scheme and explained that its Waiver Scheme is mainly confined to people whose only source of household income is one of the Department of Social & Family Affairs (DSFA) means-tested allowances listed in the scheme. The reason for this, according to the Council, is that it gives the Council an objective assessment of the financial circumstances that a person is in. When the DSFA undertakes a means test, they consider the income of the applicant and their spouse. As part of the application the Council also requires the applicant to confirm if the payment/allowance is the only source of income in the household. In this way every reasonable effort is made to ensure that the waiver is given to those who are most in need.
In relation to non-means tested allowances, the Council took the view that the household may be in receipt of other forms of income, which are not considered by DSFA as these allowances are normally paid based on PRSI contributions and no means-testing is undertaken e.g. Invalidity Pension and Old Age Contributory Pension. The Council informed my Office that an excessive level of resources would be required if the Council were to conduct a means test for all applicants for a waiver, and that it therefore relies on the work previously carried out by the DSFA as the best available basis for assessing a person's financial situation.
My Office noted that the Deserted Wife’s Benefit (DWB) is included in the list of qualifying criteria for the scheme, although it is not necessarily a means-tested payment, while the One Parent Family Allowance (OPFA) is not included, even though it is a means-tested payment. This appeared to be an anomaly in the waiver scheme and at variance with the general rationale on which the waiver scheme was based. The Council subsequently explained that applicants in receipt of DWB were deemed eligible for a waiver as, historically, recipients of this payment had been granted relief by the Council under previous schemes that provided relief on hardship grounds. It also explained that the DWB was replaced by the OPFA in January 1997 and, consequently, there are only a small number of on-going recipients of DWB. The Council further explained that it had decided not to include the OPFA as a qualifying income source as it had been established through the DSFA that there was a large number of people in the area of the local authority in receipt of this payment, and on that basis, the Council would not have the resources to fund the grant of a waiver to such numbers of potential applicants.
It was also noted by my Office that there was no provision in the waiver scheme that would allow the Council to consider granting a waiver to applicants on hardship grounds, where the applicant did not qualify under the specific terms of the scheme. The Council explained to my Office that its policy is to keep within the limits of the scheme and that it rarely made exceptions. At November 2006, out of approximately 500 unsuccessful applicants that year, only two exceptions had been made and waivers were granted in these two cases on medical grounds.
In further correspondence between the Council and the public representative who had made the complaint to my Office, the Council accepted that the scheme is not entirely fair as each applicant is not fully means-tested, and it would be fairer to make the waiver available to all people with an income below a certain set level. However, the Council pointed out that the administration of such a scheme would require access to an independent source of income verification and this was not available to the Council.
This Report
As already stated, it was the receipt of a number of complaints against Waterford County Council that prompted me to carry out a wider study of waiver schemes in local authorities generally and the individual complainants have been advised of this review. This Report describes my findings, conclusions and recommendations in relation to the operation of waste waiver schemes.