Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s handling of Mr Y’s Congestion Charge Account. This is because we are unlikely to add to Transport for London’s response, and an investigation by the Ombudsman would unlikely achieve anything more for Mr Y. Mr Y has also not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the handling of his Congestion Charge Account. He says Transport for London’s (TFL) poor handling resulted in him being issued many Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) in error. He also says he was incorrectly charged a congestion fee.
2. Mr Y says this left him feeling stressed and anxious.

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:

• 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
• 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Authority.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y complained to TFL about the handling of his Congestion Charge Account. He received 30 PCN’s for his vehicle, which he says were issued in error.
7. TFL upheld Mr Y’s complaint and acknowledged that the PCN’s were issued in error. It apologised to Mr Y and cancelled all 30 PCN’s. TFL refunded Mr Y £45 for an ad-hoc payment he had made and wrote off the outstanding £394.50 on his account for the congestion charges.
8. I understand Mr Y wants TFL to offer him further compensation. We do not make recommendations for organisations to pay compensation. Where an individual has suffered injustice because of an organisation’s actions, we may suggest a remedy. We publish guidance on remedies, and I am satisfied that the Authority has sufficiently remedied the injustice experienced by Mr Y in line with our guidance.
9. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. It is unlikely we could add to the Authority’s response, and an investigation would unlikely achieve anything more for Mr Y. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
10. Mr Y is unhappy TFL previously refused his request to refund the congestion charges and says TFL has wrongly claimed these charges were correctly incurred. However, even if I did find fault by TFL in this regard, I do not consider Mr Y has suffered significant injustice because the charges have now been removed from his account.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add to TFL’s response, and an investigation by the Ombudsman would unlikely achieve anything more for Mr Y. Mr Y has also not suffered significant injustice in relation to his complaint about how TFL dealt with his request to refund congestion charges.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman