39 A parking attendant was dismissed without notice because she had visited an amusement arcade dressed in uniform during working hours. The local authority (her employer) informed the Ombudsman that the parking attendant had previously been informed that she was contravening the local authority’s employee policy by visiting the amusement arcade in uniform. The parking attendant denied previously having received information and guidance of this nature from the local authority. The Ombudsman was unable to resolve the disagreement of the two parties as it involved conflicting claims. In other words, he could not disprove that the parking attendant had been told that she would be dismissed if she visited the amusement arcade in uniform. He therefore could not criticise the local authority’s dismissal of the parking attendant. The case did not offer the Ombudsman grounds for considering whether the local authority should have taken notes of the content of its conversations with the woman about the consequences of visiting the amusement arcade in uniform. As a starting point, the Ombudsman considers cases on a written basis. He is unable to examine witnesses or in other ways assess the evidence in a case. The chairman of a local tenants’ association lodged a complaint about a mayor’s refusal to meet with him, referring him instead to the relevant part of the adminis­ tration. The Ombudsman assessed that it does not follow from good adminis­ trative practice that a citizen is generally entitled to a meeting with a particular person in the public adminis­ tration – in this case the mayor. The Ombudsman not only assesses cases on the basis of written rules of law. He also considers whether the authorities have followed the guidelines implied by good adminis­ trative practice. These are unwritten principles laying down ‘softer’ requirements in relation to the authorities’ treatment of citizens. These non-statutory prin­ ciples have primarily been developed through the Ombudsman’s practice.