Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for the Ultra Low Emission Zone. An investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains Transport for London wrongly charged him for journeys he did not make into its Ultra Low emission Zone (ULEZ). The Authority has accepted he was charged in error. It has apologised, said it would refund him all the charges and taken steps to reduce the risk of further errors. Mr X says he has not yet been refunded all the charges and the refund is insufficient to remedy the injustice caused.

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 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In its complaint response, the Authority accepted it had charged him in error due to the automatic number plate recognition system misinterpreting his number plate. It apologised to him for this. It said it kept images for 90 days to allow customers time to dispute the charges. It said it had refunded him for all charges made within the previous 90 days. It said although images before this time had been deleted, it would also refund him an additional £37.50 for charges occurred more than 90 days ago as a gesture of good will.
6. Mr X told us the Authority had not yet refunded the additional £37.50 it agreed to during the complaints process. He also feels he should receive an additional remedy for the time and trouble spent raising his complaint.
7. During our consideration of the complaint, the Authority provided evidence it has since refunded him the full £37.50. It accepted there had been a delay in providing this refund. It said it would write to Mr X to apologise to for this and offered him a further £50 to acknowledge the delay.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. The Authority has now refunded him all the charges and the Authority’s offer of an apology and an additional £50 to acknowledge any distress caused by the delay is an appropriate remedy. Further investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman