Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the road user charges imposed on Mr X’s vehicle as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Authority.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains Transport for London (TfL) has unfairly classified his vehicle in respect of charges he must pay for using the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels. Mr X does not feel TfL’s charging policy is fair and proportionate. Mr X would like a refund of the 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 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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority. I have referred to the Silvertown Tunnel Order 2018.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. TfL is empowered under the Silvertown Tunnel Order 2018 (the Order) to levy charges in respect of motor vehicles using the Silvertown and Blackwall tunnels. The Order sets out the different classification of vehicles and the charges for each class.
7. TfL has had sight of Mr X’s vehicle registration document (and has also sent me a copy of the relevant section of that document) and confirmed that it classes it as a vehicle designed and constructed for the carriage of goods, and given its weight, that it falls within class N1(ii) of the Order.
8. I have checked Mr X’s vehicle against the Order. Mr X’s vehicle in described as a light goods vehicle panel van on its vehicle registration document and so it is unlikely we would find that TfL’s assessment of it as a vehicle designed for the carriage of goods is fault. This and the weight of Mr X’s vehicle does mean that it falls within class N1(ii).
9. I recognise Mr X is unhappy about his vehicle classification in that he says it is for light, personal use only, and is not a large van, but this does not equate to TfL being at fault. For the reasons given above, I consider it is unlikely we would find fault by TfL and therefore that we could not challenge the merits of its decision. As per paragraphs two and three, we will not therefore investigate.
10. If Mr X would wish to challenge the lawfulness of TfL’s interpretation of the nature of his vehicle, this would be a matter for the courts. We are not empowered to make such rulings.
11. I appreciate that Mr X feels the charging policy is unfair but again, this does not provide evidence of fault and there are not therefore grounds for us to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we will find fault by TfL.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman