Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an annual charge to use the Mersey Toll Bridge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about an annual charge to use a toll bridge.

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 an investigation if we believe the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and information from the Council. I considered information about the bridge and the discount scheme. I considered comments Mr X made in response to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. People have to pay a toll to use the bridge. Eligible residents can pay a £10 annual fee and then make unlimited bridge crossings at no extra cost. The £10 fee gives unlimited use of the bridge for a year.

What happened

5. Mr X is a local resident. He incurred a £40 fine for using the bridge without paying the toll.
6. Mr X paid £10 and joined the discount scheme for residents. The Council cancelled the fine. Mr X does not owe any money to the Council for use of the bridge. He can make unlimited bridge crossings.
7. Mr X complains about the £10 fee. He says he been intimidated into paying a fee. He objects to toll bridges and suggests the annual fee is really a toll. He objects to toll bridges and the annual charge.
8. Mr X is no longer driving and does not anticipate getting his car back on the road.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation because Mr X has not been caused an injustice. I appreciate Mr X objects to the annual fee, and questions its status, but a dispute over £10 is not an injustice which requires an investigation by the Ombudsman.
10. In addition, the fee gave Mr X unlimited use of the bridge for a year if he had decided to keep driving. And, now that Mr X has decided to stop driving, he will not need to pay the fee next year. Mr X says the presence of the toll bridge forced him to give up his car and this, he says, is an injustice. However, Mr X was not forced to stop driving; he could have continued to drive and benefited from the unlimited crossings or he could have kept driving but avoided the bridge.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman