Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her request to refund the deposit she paid for her wedding ceremony after she cancelled it. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision not to refund the non-refundable deposit she paid for her wedding ceremony after she cancelled it due to the worsening of her chronic health condition. Miss X also complains the Council was slow to respond to her refund request and there was no empathy or attempt to help her with her request.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. I considered the Council’s ceremonies terms and conditions which are published on its website.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X paid a non-refundable deposit for her wedding ceremony. A few weeks later Miss X decided to cancel the ceremony due to a worsening of her chronic health condition. She informed the Council and asked it to refund her deposit.
9. The Council told Miss X a refund would be subject to a manager’s discretion. Miss X says she chased the Council for a response and when she did receive a response she was told a refund would not be offered.
10. The Council considered Miss X’s request. It decided that in line with its terms and conditions, which are clear that the deposit is non-refundable, it would not refund the deposit in this case. However, it said it could offer her alternative options such as changing the venue, which would bring the date forward or it could consider a housebound wedding if Miss X met the relevant criteria.
11. The Council’s ceremonies terms and conditions are published on its website. These state that where a booking is made more than 6 months before your ceremony date, a non-refundable deposit will be required. It states that in the event you cancel the ceremony, requests for a refund will be considered on an individual basis subject to the conditions which include:
• The non-refundable deposit, paid at the time of booking is non-refundable in all cases.
• Administration fees and Legal Notice Fees are non-refundable in all cases.
• It is advisable that you take out ceremony insurance to cover losses or expenses incurred in the event of unexpected circumstances.
12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. The Council has acted in line with its terms and conditions which clearly state the deposit is non-refundable. It considered whether to exercise discretion in Miss X’s case but, taking account of the relevant information, it decided not to. This is a decision the Council was entitled to make and it has clearly explained its decision.
13. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council’s decision. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decision. If, as here, we decide there is no sign of fault in the way the decision was made we cannot question the decision even though Miss X disagrees with it.
14. I have considered Miss X’s complaint that the Council delayed in responding to her refund request. Miss X first requested a refund on 9 September 2025 and the Council provided a response on 22 September 2025 after some chasing. There is no significant period of delay here which would warrant an investigation by this office.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to offer a refund of the non-refundable deposit paid.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman