Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the complainant cannot claim a residents’ discount for the congestion zone. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority and because there is no meaningful outcome the Ombudsman could achieve.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains he cannot get a residents’ discount for the congestion zone. It is costing him £15 a day to get to his job as a care worker.

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, 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 read the complaint and the Authority’s response. I considered information on the Authority’s website about changes to the congestion zone. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Congestion charge changes

4. The Authority has reached a funding agreement with the Government. Part of the agreement is that the Authority had to bring in temporary changes to the way the congestion charge operates. One of the changes is that residents, from 1 August, cannot apply for a residents’ discount.
5. There is a reimbursement scheme that covers some NHS staff and care workers. The scheme means people who qualify can get a refund from their employer to cover the congestion charge.

What happened

6. Mr X complained to the Authority that he cannot apply for a residents’ discount. He is a care worker and it costs him £15 a day to get to work. Mr X wanted to know when he would be able to apply for a discount.
7. In response the Authority explained that the funding agreement with the Government meant it had to change the way the congestion charge operates. It explained that one of the changes is the suspension of the discount for residents. It said it is not known when this will change. The Authority explained that if there are plans to make the changes permanent there will be a full consultation. The Authority signposted Mr X to information about the reimbursement scheme.

Assessment

8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority. The Authority had to suspend the discount in line with the new funding agreement. Its decision not to allow Mr X a discount is consistent with the current policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.
9. In addition, the current arrangements form part of an agreement the Authority has reached with the Government as part of the funding arrangement. The Ombudsman has no power to change the agreement or to tell the Authority it must give Mr X a discount. Depending on his circumstances, Mr X might be able to benefit from the reimbursement scheme for some key workers.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman