Summary: Mr X complains that Transport for London did not deal with his application for a resident’s discount for the congestion charge. Transport for London is at fault as it did not activate Mr X’s resident’s discount in November 2016 when he supplied documents to support his application. Transport for London is also at fault for failing to deal with Mr X’s complaint between 2017 and late 2018. Transport for London has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment of £100 and refund the difference between the congestion charge paid and the discounted rate.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that Transport for London did not properly deal with his application for a resident’s discount for the congestion charge. As a result Mr X was unable to claim the discount from November 2016 when he made his application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have:
• Considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X;
• Made enquiries of Transport for London (TfL) and considered the information provided;
• Invited Mr X and the Council to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. In November 2016 Mr X applied for a resident’s discount for the congestion charge. This allows residents who live in the congestion charge zone to receive a 90% discount. Mr X did not initially provide proof of his residency or vehicle ownership so TfL refunded his application fee by cheque. Mr X did not bank the cheque.
6. Mr X’s has provided emails which show he later sent TfL the required proofs of residency and vehicle ownership in November 2016. Following a conversation with an officer Mr X sent the details to TfL again in December 2016. In January 2017 TfL notified Mr X again he had not sent the required documents.
7. During 2017 and 2018 Mr X contacted a number of officers for assistance and made a number of complaints to TfL regarding its failure to activate a resident’s discount. Mr X did not receive a response.
8. In late 2018 Mr X made a complaint to the Mayor’s office and requested TfL backdate his residents discount to when he applied in November 2016. An officer responded and advised TfL had activated his resident’s discount and waived the application fee. The officer advised she could not backdate Mr X’s discount to November 2016 as TfL did not receive the required documents between January 2017 and his complaint to the Mayor’s office in late 2018.
9. In response to my enquiries TfL has said that it has no record of Mr X providing all the required documentation for his resident’s discount. But it acknowledges the evidence Mr X provided with his complaint to the Ombudsman show he attempted to send the required documentation. TfL has said it changed service provider and made some changes to its operational processes in 2016 which could account for being unable to locate Mr X’s emails and documents. But due to the gaps in its records it cannot provide a precise explanation of why TfL could not process Mr X’s application.
10. TfL has also acknowledged it has no record of Mr X’s complaints and only became aware of them when he contacted the Mayor’s office. TfL has therefore offered to issue a refund of £142.75 which is the difference between the full rate congestion charge Mr X paid between 16 November 2016 and December 2018 and the 90% discount Mr X would have received if he had been registered for a resident’s discount for this period. It has also offered to make a payment of £50 to Mr X as a goodwill gesture.

My assessment

11. TfL has acknowledged Mr X has evidenced he supplied the required documents in November 2016 and it did not activate his resident’s discount. TfL has also acknowledged it did not deal with Mr X’s complaints during 2017 and 2018 until he complained to the Mayor’s office. This is fault. I welcome TfL’s proposal to remedy Mr X’s complaint. The question for me is whether this remedy offered is sufficient and appropriate to remedy Mr X’s injustice.
12. The refund of the difference between the congestion charge Mr X’s paid and the discounted rate is appropriate. This is because it puts Mr X back in the position he would have been in if the fault had not occurred. TfL considers it should refund Mr X a total of £142.75 for 15 journeys made between 16 November 2016 and December 2018. Mr X also considers he made 15 journeys but he incurred charges of £198.50 so should receive a greater refund. TfL has provided the auto pay records for the period which set out the journeys and charges for each month. These show Mr X paid an additional £30 between November 2018 and December 2018 to renew his registration to use its auto pay billing service. Mr X also paid £10 to register for resident’s discount in November 2016 which TfL then refunded. Mr X would have always incurred these charges and they were not incurred as a result of fault by TfL. So I am satisfied TfL’s proposed refund of £142.75 is sufficient. TfL has also agreed to reissue the cheque for £10 to Mr X which was the refund of the resident’s discount application fee in November 2016 and which he did not bank.
13. TfL’s failure to deal with Mr X’s complaint caused avoidable time and trouble to Mr X as he had to send further complaints and chase for responses. A payment of £100 would be more appropriate to acknowledge the avoidable time and trouble caused to Mr X. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidelines for remedying complaints.

Agreed action

14. That TfL:
1. Sends a written apology to Mr X and makes a payment of £100 to acknowledge the avoidable time and trouble caused by failing to deal with Mr X’s complaint and that he had provided the required documentation to support his resident’s discount application in November 2016.
2. Refunds £142.75 which is the difference between the congestion charge and discounted rate for charges paid by Mr X between 16 November 2016 and December 2018.
3. Reissues a cheque for £10 which is the refund of the resident’s discount application fee issued in November 2016.
15. TfL should take the action above within one month of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

16. TfL is at fault as it did not activate Mr X’s resident’s discount in November 2016 when he supplied documents to support his application. TfL is also at fault for failing to deal with Mr X’s complaint between 2017 and late 2018. TfL has agreed to remedy Mr X’s injustice as recommended.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman