London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 017 244)

Category : Environment and regulation > Licensing

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 22 Mar 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s arrangements for payment of selective licences. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Nor would further investigation lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, I shall call Mr P, complains he must use a credit or debit card to pay for a selective licence using an online system. He says this is discriminatory against those with no digital skills.
  2. He says the Council charged him an extra £100 to pay by bank transfer.
  3. Mr P wants the Council reprimanded and made to refund him the £100.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:
  • there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating
  • further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by Mr P and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. The Council set up an online automated payment system for paying for selective licences. A credit or debit card is needed.
  2. Mr P does not have a credit or debit card. In response to his enquiries the Council suggested he used a prepaid debit card or asked a third-party to make the payment on his behalf.
  3. Mr P refused both suggestions starting that he does not wish to have any bank cards, including a prepaid debit card. He also suggested that asking a third party to pay for him could be money laundering.
  4. The Council confirmed the online automated system was created to keep the administrative costs of the licenses as low as possible. It also advised that asking a third party to make the payment on his behalf would not create a contract and would not be viewed as money laundering.
  5. However, the Council agreed to a one-off arrangement with Mr P to accept payment by bank transfer. To cover the additional admin costs the Council charged Mr P £100.
  6. Mr P refuses to use any type of card either debit, credit or prepaid. That is his choice. However, the Council is entitled to set up a scheme using the most cost-effective method of payment. It says more than 27,000 applications were paid using this scheme, including the previous license for the Mr P’s property. Mr P has been able to pay for his fee at extra cost to cover the alternative special arrangement.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Nor would further investigation lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings