Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has refused to refund a payment for its clean air zone which he made for the wrong day. This is because the injustice he claims is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has refused to refund a payment for driving in the clean air zone which he made in error.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
5. I understand it is frustrating that the Council will not refund Mr X’s erroneous payment but at £9 the amount of the payment is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman