Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Authority will not award a congestion charge discount for the complainant’s motor tricycle. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X disagrees with the Authority’s decision that his motor tricycle does not qualify for a congestion charge discount.

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 it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and the Authority’s response. I considered the rules on tricycles and the discount. I also considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Discounts – motor tricycles

5. Drivers of motor tricycles qualify for a 100% discount for the congestion charge if the bike is less than two metres long.

What happened

6. Mr X drives a motor tricycle. He applied for the discount. The Authority rejected his application because his bike is more than two metres long.
7. Mr X accepts his bike is two metres long but he disagrees with the decision. He says there are some two wheeled bikes that are longer and wider than his bike.

Assessment

8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority. Mr X’s bike is longer than the maximum length required for motor tricycles to qualify for the discount. The Authority’s decision is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.
9. Mr X disagrees with the Authority’s decision but the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body and it is not my role to decide what the rules should be on whether a vehicle qualifies for a discount. If Mr X thinks that more tricycles should qualify for the discount then he would need to lobby the Authority, or the London Assembly, for a change to the discount rules. It is for the Authority, not the Ombudsman, to set the rules.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman