Summary: Ms B complains the Council has refused to refund the licence application fee she paid for a tattooing licence despite deciding not to pursue her application further. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council which warrants an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, says the Council did not make her aware that the licence application fee she paid for a tattooing licence would not be refundable if it did not issue a licence and has refused her request for a refund.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information Ms B provided and gave her the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments she made.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms B applied to the Council to a tattooing licence in September 2018 and paid the licence application fee.
5. An officer contacted Ms B to explain she would be visiting the premises where Ms B intended to work to check it complied with the necessary legal requirements, one of which is that the premises are required to have hot water.
6. The officer visited in October but found no hot water and advised Ms B this was required. Email communication between the officer and Ms B took place between November 2018 and February 2019 when the officer visited the premises again and established that the hot water would not be sorted out for a few months. When the officer passed this information on to Ms B, Ms B requested a refund of her application fee. The Council refused Ms B’s request
7. In addressing Ms B’s complaint about this, and the fact that it had not made clear the Council could retain the fee without providing a licence, the Council explained it did not provide refunds following unsuccessful or withdrawn applications. It told her the fee was to cover the administrative costs associated with the application and that the law allowed it to recover costs reasonably required for this.

Assessment

8. The Council was unable to issue Ms B with a licence because the premises she intended to use had no hot water. The officer dealing with her case visited the premises twice and communicated by email at various times to explain this and to try and move matters on. There were clearly costs for the Council associated with determining Ms B’s application for which it is legally entitled to charge.
9. Ms B says there were no terms and conditions to state the fee was not refundable but, as the Council explained, the fee is for the administrative costs spent on the application, not for issuing the licence. It also reasonably pointed out that it in fact spent more time, and over a longer period, on Ms B’s application than it would normally expect to do.
10. It has taken into account Ms B’s point that Council documentation did not state the application fee was non-refundable but it has now added this to the application form and its website to make this clear.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council which warrants an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman