Transport for London (19 005 553)

Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 09 Jul 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The authority accepts that it did not handle Ms X’s complaint regarding the congestion charge well. It has refunded direct debits it took covering a six month period. The Ombudsman considers this is an appropriate remedy.

The complaint

  1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complains TFL, “ the authority” failed to properly investigate her complaint that it had incorrectly charged her via autopay for the congestion charge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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).
  2. If we are satisfied with an authority’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

  1. I have considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the authority and considered the comments and documents it provided. Ms X and the authority had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Ms X pays the congestion charge via Auto Pay. This means that when she enters the congestion charge zone the Authority takes payments automatically via direct debit. The Authority sends monthly statements to customers.
  2. On 10 April 2019 Ms X contacted the Authority by telephone and said that it was taking charges via Auto Pay when she had not entered the congestion charge zone. She said the Authority was charging her for another vehicle with a similar number plate. Ms X says the Authority’s officer agreed that it would carry out a 6 month review. The officer’s note of the call states that: “they would like you to look back as far as possible please because they believe they have been getting charged incorrectly for a while.”
  3. In late April 2019 Ms X chased the Authority for a response by email. She said the Authority had agreed to carry out a 6 month review.
  4. On 13 May 2019 the Authority refunded 5 charges going back to mid February 2019. It advised Ms X that it had done this by email.
  5. Ms X replied that the Authority should go back to October 2018. She sent her email to the “do not reply” email address that she had received. The Authority says it does not routinely monitor email to that address.
  6. Ms X chased a response in June 2019. The Authority responded in June 2019 that the terms and conditions of the Auto Pay service stated that if a customer disputed a charge they must contact it within 60 days from the date of the statement including the disputed charge. It also said it only kept Auto Pay images for 90 days. Therefore, it said it was unable to refund any further charges.
  7. Ms X complained to the Authority that it was unacceptable that it would not review the charges for 6 months it had falsely charged her due to its error. She said she had been chasing the matter for three months. As she did not receive a response Ms X complained to the Ombudsman. We referred the complaint back to the Authority as it had not completed its complaints procedure
  8. The Authority responded in September 2019 and apologised for its delay in replying. It explained it had added Ms X’s registration number to a special list to ensure it carried out extra check. It confirmed it had refunded 5 charges in May, but since then all the charges were correct.
  9. Ms X complained further that the Authority had promised a 6 month review and she believed there were charges before February 2019 which were incorrect.
  10. In its final response in November 2019, the Authority said it had checked the previous 90 days when Ms X contacted it in April. It said it had immediately refunded the incorrect charges. It repeated it destroyed images after 90 days and so was unable to consider disputes regarding earlier charges.
  11. In its response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries the Authority confirmed that it did not have specific evidence when it destroyed images. It explained that when officers looked at images older than 90 days they were unable to access them. However, the Authority accepted that the officer’s note of the call in April referred to going as far back as possible, and noted it should have explained to Ms X it was unable to check images older than 90 days. In view of this and the way it handled her complaint, the Authority said it would arrange to withdraw all 15 charges it had made since October 2018.

Agreed action

  1. I consider that the Authority’s offer to withdraw all 15 charges from October 2018 is and appropriate remedy for the poor handling of Ms X’s complaint. I recommended that the authority ensures it has withdrawn the charges and confirms this to Ms X within one month of my decision.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Authority has agreed my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings