Summary: Mr Y complains that Transport for London refused to renew his application for a resident’s discount for the congestion charge. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way the decision was reached.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains that Transport for London (TFL) refused to renew his application for a resident’s discount for the congestion charge. Mr Y says he has suffered financial loss and has had to limit the use of his car since September 2020. Mr Y says TFL’s decision has caused additional distress to him and his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an Authority’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)
3. If we are satisfied with an authority’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr Y’s complaint and made enquiries of TFL. I considered TFL’s response and relevant legislation. I gave Mr Y and TFL a copy of my draft decision and invited their comments. I considered all the comments I received before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. As part of a funding agreement with the Government TFL agreed to bring in temporary changes to the way congestion charges operate. One of the changes is that from 1 August 2020, residents can no longer apply for a 90% residents’ discount.

Back to top

What happened

6. Mr Y had a resident’s discount for the congestion charge until 13 January 2020. On 20 December 2019 TFL wrote to Mr Y with a renewal invitation, explaining his discount was due to expire and setting out what he needed to do to renew it. Mr Y did not take any action and his resident’s discount expired.
7. In September 2020 Mr Y contacted TFL to query charges to his credit card and TFL confirmed the expiry of his discount. Mr X says this was the first time he realised his discount had expired. He asked TFL to renew his discount, but TFL refused. It explained it had undertaken a campaign to make residents aware of the changes to the discount in Summer 2020 and these changes came into effect on 1 August 2020.
8. Mr Y complained. In response TFL explained the funding agreement with the Government meant it had to change the way the congestion charge operates. It said one of the changes is the suspension of the discount for new residents. TFL said the amendments to the scheme was to “deter residents who have not previously driven in the charging zone from switching to car journeys. The response highlighted two categories of residents:
1. Long term residents with a car who only previously used it outside the schemes charging hours; and
2. New residents who expected more time to register.

9. Mr Y is dissatisfied with the reply and said the objectives and outcomes of the scheme do not apply to his circumstances. Mr Y says he was not making a new application nor was he a new resident. Mr Y has been a resident at the same address since 2014, has not changed his vehicle, has numerous previous registrations for a resident’s discount and a history of driving in the zone. Mr Y would like TFL to reinstate his discount and reimburse the difference between the discounted rate and credit card charges from the date the discount is issued.

Analysis

10. Mr Y has questioned the lawfulness of TFL’s decision. He says TFL made an error in law by interpreting the statutory definition of resident’s eligible to the resident’s discount incorrectly in his circumstances. The Ombudsman cannot say TFL made an error in law and or that a decision is unlawful. That is solely a matter for the courts.
11. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of decisions which have been made in the proper manner. I must consider whether TFL followed a proper decision making process in deciding whether Mr Y qualified for a residents discount. In this case TFL was acting in direct response to the requirements of the Government. It has powers to vary the terms of the congestion charge.
12. Annex 3 of the Greater London (central Zone) Congestion Charging (Exceptional Variation) Order 2020 provides the definition of a “qualified resident” subject to criteria that an application is received on or before 31 July 2020.
13. Mr Y’s discount expired six months prior to 31 July 2020 and eight months before he made a renewal application. With reference to Annex 3 and the considerable length of time passed since Mr Y’s discount expired, TFL refused Mr Y’s application. It is Mr Y’s view the criteria requires only that an application be received on or before 31 July 2020 and says he was registered for the scheme until January 2020. Mr Y had not had the discount since January and TFL decided it was not a renewal but a new application. This is a decision TFL was entitled to make.
14. Mr Y has acknowledged he did not renew the discount on time and has explained his personal circumstances, but the temporary suspension policy does not provide an exemption for people who were unable to renew a previous discount. I note that TFL did apply discretion and considered some late renewal applications. The discount was originally closed to new applications from 18 May 2020 and TFL continued to process all applications received up to and including 31 July 2020. However, in this case Mr Y did not contact TFL until September 2020. TFL reviewed and considered the information Mr Y provided with his complaint and maintained its decision to reject his application. This is a decision TFL was entitled to make.
15. TFL proposed to temporarily close the discount scheme to “new applicants” (either new residents of the zone or existing residents who are newly considering registering for the discount). The Order stated that residents who were already registered for the discount would continue to be eligible and able to renew their discount for their currently registered vehicle and any replacement vehicles. The wording here is important as the Order refers to “new applicants” and not new residents. TFL is clear that a new applicant is someone applying for the discount who does not currently benefit from it. Mr Y was not applying to renew his discount as it had expired, so he was applying for a new discount.
16. The Order gives TFL further discretion as it states, “In this Scheme “qualified resident” means an individual as respects whom Transport for London is… satisfied, by the production of such evidence as it may reasonable require, that the requirements specified in sub-paragraph (2) are met.” In Mr Y’s case TFL was not satisfied that the requirements were met. It was up to Mr Y to ensure he renewed his residents discount on time and he accepts he missed the renewal email. This is the cause of the issue here. It is not for the Ombudsman to direct TFL to offer Mr Y a new residents discount when the Order itself is clear that TFL has to be satisfied that the requirements are met.
17. I appreciate that Mr Y will be disappointed but there is no evidence of fault by TFL. TFL had to suspend the discount in line with its funding agreement with the Government and its decision to refuse Mr Y’s renewal application is consistent with temporary changes made to the congestion charge scheme. The Ombudsman has no power to change the agreement or, absent finding fault, to tell TFL that it must give Mr Y a discount.
18. Mr Y could contact his MP or London Assembly member if he thinks the funding agreement should be changed.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have found no fault in the process followed by TFL in this case. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman