Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about payment of the congestion charge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice and insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, says she could not pay the £15 congestion charge due to the website being unavailable. She was forced to pay £17.50 the next day. Mrs X wants a refund and compensation.

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
• 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

3. I read the complaint and the Authority’s response. I considered information on the Authority’s website and comments Mrs X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Congestion charge

4. The congestion charge is £15 when paid in advance or on the day. The charge is £17.50 when paid during the following three days. People can pay by the automated phone system which is always open. They can also pay by the website or sent up automatic payments if they have a road user charging account. Mr X has an account.

What happened

5. Mrs X tried to pay the £15 charge via the website at 10pm. She received a message saying the service was unavailable until the next morning due to planned maintenance. Mrs X says the message did not tell her there were other ways to pay. Mrs X paid £17.50 the next day.
6. Mrs X complained to the Authority. In response the Authority said there were other payment methods which would have allowed her to pay £15. It said that details of the phone system are available on the website. It offered to refund £2.50. Mrs X declined the offer.
7. Mrs X is dissatisfied with the Authority’s response. She wants a full refund and compensation for her time which she estimates to be £200.

Assessment

8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. A dispute over £2.50 does not represent a level of injustice which requires an investigation and we do not expect people to receive compensation because they spend time making a complaint. In addition, the Authority offered to refund £2.50 which, if accepted, would have put Mrs X back in the position she would have been in if the website had been available. Everyone can expect to spend some time dealing with a matter if they decide to complain and, even though Mrs X says the time she had to spend was excessive, this does not represent a level of injustice which requires an investigation. It is not that the Authority did not respond to Mrs X, thus requiring more contact, but that Mrs X was dissatisfied with the replies she received.
9. I also will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority. This is because it provided alternative payment methods while the web service was unavailable and, while the message did not refer to the phone service, there is reference to it on the webpage. Mrs X, or her husband, could also have used the account to set up automatic payments.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice and insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman