Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s application for marriage documents. There is not significant enough remaining injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly dealt with his enquiries about marrying abroad. He further complains about the Council’s response to his complaint, including its handling of concerns about an officer’s conduct and the level of payment offered. Mr X says this caused significant distress, embarrassment and financial loss.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council wrongly issued and charged Mr X £42 for a Certificate of No Impediment to marry abroad. As Mr X was planning to marry in a Commonwealth country, he did not require the certificate. The Council acknowledged its error, refunded the fee, apologised, offered a £25 payment and committed to further staff training. In the circumstances, any remaining injustice arising from the time, trouble and frustration experienced by Mr X obtaining and paying for the certificate is not significant enough to warrant further investigation by the Ombudsman.
6. Mr X says he arrived abroad with the wrong documents to get married. He says this caused significant distress, embarrassment and financial loss. The requirements for getting married abroad are decided by the country where the marriage is taking place. It is not the Council’s responsibility to advise definitively on the legal requirements for marrying in different countries. Therefore, I cannot say the distress, embarrassment and financial loss Mr X experienced resulted from fault by the Council.
7. Mr X says an officer was rude and the Council did not adequately address this part of his complaint. I do not consider these points caused Mr X significant enough injustice to justify the Ombudsman using public resources to investigate whether there was fault.
8. Mr X states he has not received the £25 payment the Council offered. In the circumstances, it would be disproportionate for us to devote public money to pursuing this point in detail. I shall ask the Council to check what has happened about this.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not significant enough remaining injustice to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman