Summary: Mr X complained about the Authority suspending new applications for discount for the congestion charge in London in August 2020. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of any fault by the Authority which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that he bought a home within the congestion charge zone for London in September 2020. On 1 August the Authority suspended the discount scheme for the congestion charge for new applicants and so he does not benefit from this. He says it is unfair that some residents receive a discount and others do not.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Department for Transport Extraordinary Funding and Financing Agreement which was issued by the Secretary of State in May 2020. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X moved into the London Congestion charge zone in September 2020. In the previous August Transport or London introduced new measures following the requirements of a government financial rescue package. This was due to significant losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Agreement required the authority to increase the charge from June and bring in other savings which included the suspension of the discount scheme from 1 August.
5. Mr X moved into the zone in late September when the discount had already been discontinued. He is not entitled to apply to the scheme and he believes it is unfair that some residents will receive the discount while he will not.
6. The Ombudsman may not question the merits of decisions which have been made in a proper manner. This means the Ombudsman will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions. In this case the Authority was acting in direct response to the requirements of the Secretary of state for Transport. It has powers to vary the terms of the congestion charge and the Agreement required that changes be made immediately.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of any fault by the Authority which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman