The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s arrangements for payment of selective licences. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Nor would further investigation lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall call Mr P, complains he must use a credit or debit card to pay for a selective licence using an online system. He says this is discriminatory against those with no digital skills.
He says the Council charged him an extra £100 to pay by bank transfer.
Mr P wants the Council reprimanded and made to refund him the £100.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr P and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council set up an online automated payment system for paying for selective licences. A credit or debit card is needed.
Mr P does not have a credit or debit card. In response to his enquiries the Council suggested he used a prepaid debit card or asked a third-party to make the payment on his behalf.
Mr P refused both suggestions starting that he does not wish to have any bank cards, including a prepaid debit card. He also suggested that asking a third party to pay for him could be money laundering.
The Council confirmed the online automated system was created to keep the administrative costs of the licenses as low as possible. It also advised that asking a third party to make the payment on his behalf would not create a contract and would not be viewed as money laundering.
However, the Council agreed to a one-off arrangement with Mr P to accept payment by bank transfer. To cover the additional admin costs the Council charged Mr P £100.
Mr P refuses to use any type of card either debit, credit or prepaid. That is his choice. However, the Council is entitled to set up a scheme using the most cost-effective method of payment. It says more than 27,000 applications were paid using this scheme, including the previous license for the Mr P’s property. Mr P has been able to pay for his fee at extra cost to cover the alternative special arrangement.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Nor would further investigation lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman