Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s ‘auto-pay’ service. This is because investigation is unlikely to achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X. Transport for London has refunded Mr X for a charge made in error and the further injustice Mr X describes is entirely speculative. Transport for London has followed its published policies and the terms and conditions for the service, which provide sufficient opportunity for motorists to dispute charges, and if Mr X considers it is unfit for purpose he does not have to use it.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about Transport for London’s (TfL) auto-pay service, which automatically charges motorists for driving in the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) and congestion charge zone. Mr X says he was charged incorrectly on one occasion, showing errors can occur. He is concerned TfL’s policies, which result in the deletion of photographic evidence after 90 days, means it is difficult for motorists to dispute charges. He also considers it unrealistic to expect motorists to monitor the charges incurred on their auto-pay account.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 Mr X and the Authority.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Motorists who drive in the ULEZ and congestion charge zones may have to pay a charge. TfL operates an ‘auto-pay’ service which charges motorists automatically via an online account each time they drive in the relevant zones and incur a charge.
6. Mr X is unhappy with the way TfL’s auto-pay service works. Specifically, he is unhappy the service wrongly charged him for a journey in one of the zones when the vehicle concerned was not his. He disputed the charge with TfL and TfL refunded it. But Mr X is unhappy that further errors could occur or may have occurred in the past. He believes TfL should retain evidence of the basis for the charges for longer to make it easier for motorists to dispute charges. He also queries whether TfL is complying with its policy, as evidence was available in his case for longer than 90 days.
7. TfL has provided a satisfactory resolution for the wrongful charge applied to Mr X’s account and has complied with its policy in dealing with his dispute. It issues motorists who use the auto-pay service itemised bills for journeys within the ULEZ and congestion charge zones and if any motorist disputes these charges it may raise the matter with TfL as provided for under the terms and conditions of the service. There is no requirement for TfL to retain evidence of the charges for longer than its policy dictates and we cannot recommend any remedy for injustice which is entirely speculative, as in this case.
8. If Mr X is not satisfied the auto-pay service is reliable and disagrees with the terms and conditions of use he does not have to use it. He may instead pay manually for each journey he makes as and when he needs to.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman