Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to refund the cost of some parking permits. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council will not refund some parking permits which he paid for but did not receive. Mr X wants a refund and compensation of £100.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. On 28 August Mr X bought some parking permits. He needed the permits for workmen who were doing work on a property. Mr X paid £5.30 for a permit for 8 September and £15.90 for permits from 9 to 11 September. Mr X did not receive the permits. The workmen had to park in a car park.
5. Mr X contacted the Council on 22 September to ask for a refund. The Council declined to issue a refund because, by the time Mr X contacted the Council, the permits had expired. The Council confirmed it had processed the applications and posted the permits to Mr X on 1 September by first class post. The Council said it could not issue refunds for expired permits because it had no way of knowing if the permits had been used. It was puzzled why Mr X had waited until later in September to get in touch.
6. Mr X wants a refund and has confirmed he did not receive the permits. He says he and his wife are very busy which is why they did not immediately contact the Council. He says the Council should use registered post and he is not responsible for problems with the post. Mr X says the Council should have contacted him to say it had posted the permits; he would then have contacted the Council when they did not arrive. Mr X says he assumed he would get a refund given that he did not receive the permits. Mr X says the Council should be held responsible and he should not have to pay for something he did not receive. Mr X also wants £100 compensation.

Assessment

7. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons.
8. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. It took the payment and processed the application. It posted the permits promptly and, like Mr X, is not responsible for problems with the post. It has explained why it will not issue a refund. It is possible that if Mr X had contacted the Council before 8 September, to say he had not received the permits, that the Council might have been able to provide a different response.
9. Mr X says the Council should use registered post. But, the Council gives no commitment to do so and, if it did, it would increase the cost of permits due to the increased cost of postage. There is also nothing on the webpage to say the Council will contact people to say it has posted the permits. This, again, may increase the cost of a permit as it would mean more officer time would have to be spent processing each application.
10. I also will not start an investigation because a dispute over £21.20 does not represent sufficient injustice to require an investigation. We also do not ask a council to pay compensation simply because someone has spent time pursuing a complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman