The Internet and the First Amendment
public services such as education, the National Health Service or even the police.'61 He concluded, that it is 'unlikely' that Parliament intended 'cash payments to be made by way of damages' to persons who, in breach of a local authority duty have not 'received benefits in kind'.62 Whether Parliament may have intended a private law right to compensatory damages for breaches of sections 21-26 NAA 1948, for individuals who suffer a loss of money, rather than a loss of benefits in kind, has not been put to the test in the cases of Sefton's elderly. Moreover, despite the intuitive reaction that there should be a readily available remedy for the recovery of money wrongfully charged by a public authority, the absence of a developed common law right to restitution in such cases63 and the non-enforceability of remedial decisions reached by the ombudsman, give continued cause for concern about the accountability of local authorities and the rights of citizens to remedial justice.