Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to refund a notice of marriage fee. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains about the Council’s decision not to refund a notice of marriage fee.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered Ms X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I also gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms X’s partner booked a marriage ceremony with the Council. Ms X and her partner attended the Council to give notice of marriage. Ms X and her partner then decided to cancel the wedding ceremony they had booked with the Council. Ms X asked the Council to refund the fees they had paid. The Council originally refused her request.
5. Ms X submitted complaints to the Council. She said Council staff had not explained the cancellation policy, and information on the Council’s website was hard to find and unclear. Ms X referred to the distance selling regulations and said the Council should provide a full refund.
6. The Council did not uphold Ms X’s complaint at stage one of its complaints process. But in its stage two response, the Council accepted the distance selling regulations should apply to bookings like Ms X’s. While Ms X had cancelled the ceremony outside of the required 14 day cooling off period, it agreed to provide a full refund.
7. Ms X then contacted the Council because it had not refunded the £70 notice of marriage fee. The Council’s response said:

“Prior to starting the official Notice, it is checked with both parties whether they are happy to continue and by continuing you have willingly given notice of your intention to marry and to provide the required information. You were provided with the notice of marriage service in accordance with this statutory process and therefore this fee is non-refundable.”

8. I understand Ms X is disappointed with the Council’s decision not to refund the £70 fee. But this fee is clearly separable to the refund the Council has agreed to pay. The Council has agreed to refund Ms X for the wedding ceremony it did not provide. But the £70 fee is for the notice of marriage service the Council did provide. The Council will have incurred costs in delivering this service – which the £70 fee covers. I do not think there is enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to refund this fee to warrant the Ombudsman’s involvement.
9. Ms X says the fee was not explained and that it was non-refundable. But even if Ms X had been given more information about the fee, we could never say she would not have gone ahead with the notice of marriage. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman