Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Transport for London’s policy for discounts and exemptions to charges for its ultra-low emission zone, which he believes is discriminatory. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by Transport for London. The evidence shows the authority had due regard to its duties and obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and only the courts can determine whether the policy is discriminatory.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about Transport for London’s (TfL’s) policy for discounts/exemptions to charges for its ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ). He believes the policy indirectly discriminates against people on the grounds of their age. He wants TfL to amend its policy and reimburse him for ULEZ charges he has paid.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and TfL.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We cannot say that TfL has breached the Equality Act 2010 or that its policy is discriminatory; these are matters for the courts. Mr X may therefore wish to seek legal advice on whether he may challenge TfL’s policy, and claim damages, at court.
6. Our role is to decide if TfL has had due regard for the Equality Act and its response to Mr X’s complaint shows it has. As part of the process for expanding the ULEZ TfL commissioned an independent report to consider the impact of the expansion and this report took account of TfL’s public sector equality duty and its responsibilities under the Equality Act. The report notes some impact of the expansion on groups of people with protected characteristics but we cannot say this amounts to discrimination.
7. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman