Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the time taken to process a refund for a cancelled class. This is because there is not enough evidence Ms X has been caused significant personal injustice. It is also unlikely an investigation would achieve anything more.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains it took 12 weeks to issue a refund for a class organised by the Council it cancelled due to COVID-19. Ms X wants an apology, a goodwill gesture, and for the Council to change its complaints process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
3. 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:

• 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Ms X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I considered information from the Council and 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

What happened

5. In March 2020, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council cancelled a class Ms X had enrolled on. Ms X says she asked the Council on 13 May and 20 June about a refund. Ms X then complained on 13 July and the Council asked for her bank details on 21 July. Ms X says this was despite her having already provided them. Ms X complained to the Council’s Chief Executive on 27 July – the same day it paid the refund. Ms X says the Council refused to escalate her complaint and did not signpost her to the Ombudsman.
6. In its final response to Ms X the Council said:
• Ms X requested a refund on 02 May. The Council paid this on 27 July.
• Ms X had sent a complaint on 13 July. The manager from the service area had decided to deal with it informally as they thought it would be easy to resolve. The manager had not therefore logged it as a stage 1 corporate complaint.
• When Ms X wrote to the Chief Executive, the Council said her complaint could not be escalated as she had not completed stage 1 of the process (see the above point). The Council sincerely apologised “for the misunderstanding and inconvenience that this confusion has caused you.”
• The manager from the service area had been told to make it clear if a response was at stage 1 of the complaints process, and to always include information about how to escalate a complaint.
• The delay in processing the refund was due to an error on its system. Not all learners were notified of the process and there were further delays due to COVID-19.
• As a gesture of goodwill, it offered Ms X a place on any course, up to 10 weeks in length, free of charge. It extended this offer to a financial equivalent.

Assessment

7. The Ombudsman does not have the resources to investigate all the cases we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider the injustice caused to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious cases. We also need to consider what more an investigation could achieve.
8. I understand it must have been frustrating for Ms X to have to wait 12 weeks for her refund. But I do not consider the injustice caused to have been significant enough to warrant the time and cost of an investigation by the Ombudsman. In reaching this decision I have taken into account the point I make below.
9. The Council has written to Ms X and explained the delay. It has processed her refund and apologised. It has taken steps to improve its processes to make sure it signposts people to the next stage of its complaints procedure. It has offered Ms X a free course or a financial equivalent. So, even if we were to investigate, I do not see what more we could add to the Council’s response. We will not therefore investigate Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence Ms X has been caused significant personal injustice, and it is unlikely we could achieve anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman