Summary: Mrs X complained about the authority’s decision to revise discounts for Mersey Tunnel charges. She says this discriminates against non-residents such as her who will lose their discount. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about the authority’s decision to remove discount of non-residents but increase that for residents. She says this discriminates against non-residents who use the tunnel when passing through the area. She says it will result in her paying over £100 per year in additional charges.

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
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mrs X submitted with her complaint and she has been given the opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X says the authority increased the price of holders of ‘fast tag’ cards living outside the Merseyside region whilst retaining a larger discount for residents. She says that she needs to use the tunnel when she passes through the area to visit family. She says the increase in charges for non-residents is discriminatory against non-residents.
5. The authority says that the tunnel facility is not part of the national road network and it is reasonable to offer discounts to those residents who may be unable to seek alternative routes because of the tunnel’s proximity.
6. 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.
7. The decision to amend the charging arrangements for the tunnel is one which the authority was entitled to make.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman