Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a refund for £8 in relation to the Clean Air Zone. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s refund policy regarding the Clean Air Zone (CAZ) and the way it is advertised. He wants the Council to refund the £8 he paid by mistake.

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 an investigation if we decide 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. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Drivers of a non-compliant car must pay a £8 daily charge to enter the CAZ. The refund policy says the Council will only issue a refund in limited circumstances. The policy does not say the Council will make a refund for payments made in error.
5. Mr X made an error and paid £8 for a day when he did not enter the zone. The Council declined his request for a refund.
6. Mr X disagrees with the refund policy, questions whether it is based on legislation, and says the Council does not advertise the policy properly. Mr X wants a full refund.
7. I will not start an investigation because a dispute over £8 does not represent a degree of injustice which warrants an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman