Harlow District Council (25 012 597)

Category : Other Categories > Other

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 17 Nov 2025

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to reimburse the complainant for a taxi fare he paid. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains that the Council has refused to reimburse him for a wasted taxi fare he paid after he was incorrectly told when to collect a response to an information request he had made.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

  1. The Council accepted that Mr X had been given inaccurate information about when the Council’s response to his information request would be ready. The Council said it would reimburse him for his taxi journey and asked him to provide a receipt.
  2. Mr X said he could not remember the taxi company he used so could not get a receipt. The Council said without a receipt it could not reimburse him the £40 he says he paid but did pay him £10.
  3. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. Whilst it is unfortunate that Mr X cannot remember the name of the taxi company he used, it is not unreasonable for the Council to request evidence before it makes a reimbursement. Therefore there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council’s refusal to pay Mr X the full £40 he requested.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

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