Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems with Transport for London’s website, which Miss X says affected her ability to pay the congestion charge and resulted in an unfair penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Authority and we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains Transport for London (TfL) failed to process her online payment for the congestion charge, as a result of which it later issued her a penalty charge notice (PCN) for driving in the congestion charge zone without paying the charge.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 Miss X and the Authority.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X has appealed against the PCN to London Tribunals but London Tribunals has made clear the grounds of her appeal amount to mitigation only, which it cannot consider when dealing with appeals against PCNs issued for congestion charge zone contraventions. We can therefore consider her complaint about the PCN and about TfL’s handling of her representations against it.
6. It is however unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Miss X by investigating further. This is because TfL has already considered and responded to Miss X’s arguments and the Adjudicator at London Tribunals has commented on them in their decision on her appeal. TfL has explained that there were no known problems with its website at the time of Miss X's attempted payment and Miss X has not provided sufficient evidence to show any error on its part prevented her from paying. Both TfL and the Adjudicator have also noted that Miss X could have contacted TfL by phone to make the payment, and although Miss X says she tried to call and the line was shut, she had plenty of opportunity to try again within the payment window.
7. Ultimately, we cannot forensically examine what went wrong with Miss X’s attempted payment or say TfL was at fault for the payment not being completed and we cannot therefore recommend TfL cancels the PCN or refunds any payment Miss X may have made for it.
8. While Miss X is also unhappy with TfL’s handling of her representations against the PCN I cannot say its decision to reject them was wrong; it has clearly considered the points made and sought further evidence from Miss X but was not satisfied there was an issue which prevented her from paying the congestion charge. This was a decision it was entitled to reach and I have seen no evidence of fault in the process.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for Miss X. We cannot determine the reason for Miss X’s failed payment and there is no evidence of fault in TfL’s handling of her representations against the PCN.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman