Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s recording of the incorrect premises for Ms X’s Notice of Marriage. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a significantly different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council’s incorrect recording of the premises for her Notice of Marriage led to her having to have a second appointment to give Notice again which led to financial costs and significant emotional and mental stress for which she should be compensated over and above the refunds already offered by the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We do not investigate every complaint we receive and we will not investigate if the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.
6. While Ms X was clearly caused stress and inconvenience and incurred costs in having to have a second appointment to give Notice of Marriage, there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.
7. The Council’s own investigation established the reason for the incorrect premises being entered for the first Notice and as a goodwill gesture it offered to refund the cost of the second Notice appointment and the consideration fee for the Reduction in the Waiting Period. It has explained why it did not refund Ms X's travel costs to return to East Sussex for the second appointment. I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would usefully add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a significantly different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a significantly different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman