Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the increase in toll costs for the Tamar Bridge and Torpoint Ferry. This is because the increase was approved by central government and we cannot say it was wrong.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Tamar Bridge & Torpoint Ferry Joint Committee (the Committee) has increased its toll charges by more than 30%.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint, shared my draft decision with him and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Committee oversees the operation and maintenance of the Tamar Bridge and Torpoint Ferry. It is formed of councillors from Plymouth City Council and Cornwall Council, which are jointly responsible for it, but receives no external funding. It is therefore entirely dependent on revenue from tolls charged for using the crossings to fund its running costs and programme of repairs and maintenance.
5. In 2019 the Committee applied to the Secretary of State for Transport to increase the amount of the toll from £1.50 to £2 when paid by cash, and from 75p to £1 when paid by “Tamar Tag” (a discounted payment method for those who use the crossing regularly).
6. Mr X complains the amount of the increase is an outrage as he is sure the bridge makes enough money to pay for itself. He is concerned the increase in the toll may be used to supplement the councils’ income and does not believe this is fair.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Toll charges have not increased since 2010 and the Committee’s accounts are clear about the need for the increase to cover running costs and to provide for present and future maintenance. Mr X’s belief that that the bridge makes enough money to cover its costs therefore seems incorrect.
8. But regardless of the Committee’s reasons for requesting the increase, it did not make the final decision to implement it. The Committee had to make a request to the Secretary of State for Transport, who in turn commissioned an independent inspector to review the request and report back. The request was then approved by central government under separate legislation. As a result we could not say the Committee’s request directly caused the injustice Mr X and we cannot change to law to reverse or alter the limit in any case.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve anything for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman