Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused a pro-rata refund for a parking permit. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council refused to issue a pro-rata refund for a parking permit.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him frustration and financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We will not investigate this complaint. Mr X registered his vehicle under a family member’s account. When Mr X requested a pro-rata refund, the Council found the V5C was not in the account holder’s name and therefore refused the refund in line with its terms and conditions.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
8. The Council followed its policy when making the decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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