Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how Transport for London handled her disputed congestion charges. This is because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about how Transport for London handled her disputed congestion charges. She says this has caused her distress, frustration and inconvenience and would like an apology and a payment to recognise her time and trouble. She would also like an internal review of the complaints’ process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Transport for London wrote to Mrs X to ask for payment in relation to five Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) for non-payment of the congestion charge. Mrs X says that she made repeated attempts to show that payments of the congestion charge have been made but the Council initially refused to cancel the PCNs.
6. I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because Transport for London has cancelled the PCNs which is a proportionate response. It is therefore unlikely that an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman