Transport for London (20 006 096)

Category : Transport and highways > Public transport

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 14 Dec 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complained about the authority debiting £10 from his bank account even though he had asked to close his account for congestion charge payment. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because the authority has agreed to refund the £10 and there is insufficient remaining injustice which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

  1. Mr X says Transport for London took £10 from his bank account for congestion charge renewal even though he had told it he wished to close the account.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the authority’s response. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr X told the authority that he would not be renewing his congestion charge autopay account due to the suspensions of the charge during the COVID-19 pandemic. He says that he subsequently noticed that the authority had deducted £10 from his account after his notification.
  2. The authority told him that this was because the statement for that month had already been issued and the payment period was for the whole month. However, the authority exercised its discretion to cancel the charge and agreed to refund the £10.
  3. I consider that this is a satisfactory remedy to the complaint. The Ombudsman would not normally investigate a complaint where there is insufficient significant injustice remaining.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because the authority has agreed to refund the £10 and there is insufficient remaining injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.