Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that Transport for London’s website and phone lines did not allow him to pay the congestion charge. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault causing Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains he was unable to pay the congestion charge after entering the congestion charge zone in January 2020. As a result he was scared he would receive a penalty charge notice (PCN) from Transport for London (TfL).

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 authority, 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)

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and TfL’s response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Motorists have until midnight on the charging day after entering the congestion charge zone to pay the charge. There is a discount for paying in advance or on the day of entering the congestion charge zone.
7. Mr X entered the congestion charge zone on 17 January 2020. He says he tried to pay the charge online but the system was busy and he could not pay. He says he tried again online and by phone on 18 January 2020 but there were again issues. He wrote to TfL to complain and believes TfL should pay him £1million in compensation. TfL responded on 1 February 2020 and explained there were no technical difficulties with its website on the date in question. It confirmed its automated telephone payment line is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week and suggested it had not issued Mr X a PCN. It also declined to pay Mr X compensation.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Mr X does not suggest he actually received a PCN from TfL- just that he was scared he might. This is not a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman or any financial remedy. TfL has also found no evidence of issues with its website or telephone lines and it is therefore unlikely we could show fault or that we could add to its response to Mr X’s complaint. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
9. In the event TfL had issued Mr X a PCN Mr X could have appealed against it, first to TfL and then to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the matter did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman