Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about potential discrimination by Transport for London for allegedly prioritising digital payment methods which the complainant says are not accessible to all service users. This is because the evidence suggests that problems the complainant has experienced using alternative methods are irregular in frequency as opposed to being extensive. We do not consider there is sufficient evidence of the complainant having been caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr L) complains Transport for London (TfL) is allegedly prioritising digital payment methods in respect of ULEZ charges. He says digital methods are not accessible to everyone and that failing to promote alternatives may amount to discrimination. Mr L says he encountered significant difficulties in trying to pay charges using alternative payments methods. He also complains TfL were initially unresponsive to his complaint about these issues.
2. In summary, Mr L says TfL failed to respond to his postal correspondence about these matters and did not provide any resolution or effective assistance when telephoning. As a desired outcome, Mr L wants TfL to be held accountable for the alleged failings and to implement service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; o
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Most of the issues raised by Mr L in his letter of complaint concern TfL’s complaints process. This includes TfL not responding initially to his complaint correspondence and for failing to connect him to the appropriate team when telephoning. I recognise these issues, but it must be borne in mind that we do not investigate complaints and about complaint processes where we would not deal with the substantive issues leading to the complaint. This is because we are a public body and must use our resources carefully.
6. The cause of Mr L’s complaint is that he has experienced difficulty using TfL’s online payment method to pay ULEZ charges. I acknowledge what he says about potential accessibility issues for service users with disabilities, but the evidence I have reviewed does not show Mr L having experienced difficulty by reason of any health or disability related issue he himself has. The information provided to TfL by Mr L suggests his difficulties with digital methods are isolated and more due to a lack of familiarity. I note Mr L also refers to difficulties when telephoning TfL on a particular day and being unable to make payment this way.
7. The Ombudsman is only required to accept a complaint where the complainant has been caused a significant and personal injustice because of fault by the body complained about. This means Mr L would need to show he has suffered serious loss, harm or distress due to fault by TfL. I accept it is plausible Mr L did encounter some difficulties when telephoning as he says. However, the available evidence points to such problems occurring over an isolated period. I do not consider the issues raised have caused Mr L to suffer serious loss, harm or distress. Further, Mr L does not appear to have requested any disability or health related adjustments with TfL before complaining. I am unable to conclude therefore that he has suffered any more of an injustice than any other service user encountering similar problems on an infrequent basis. In my view there is insufficient evidence of him having because a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation.
8. In terms of TfL’s complaint handling, it has responded to an instance of fault relating to it not responding to Mr L’s letter on one occasion. However, the service has apologised for this issue and given Mr L information about how it will seek to improve its services to avoid occurring again. In its complaint response to Mr L, TfL has also highlighted its responsibilities to service users who may struggle accessing particular service options. It has told with Mr L that it can identify alternative solutions when issues are raised and support is requested. I am satisfied with TfL’s response and I do not consider it would be a good use of our resources to consider TfL’s complaint handling further.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of the complainant having been caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman