Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a traffic management problem. This is because there is not significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Dr X complains that due to an incident closing a road, he had to drive through a toll tunnel. This cost him £8. Dr X says the charge was unfair and he should be refunded. Dr X also complains about the way Transport for London (TfL) dealt with his complaint. He wants compensation for his time, inconvenience and the complaint mishandling.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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 and the Authority.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
6. Dr X says he paid the £8 under protest to avoid any further fines. I understand Dr X feels the charge was unfair. However, £8 does not amount to significant enough personal injustice to warrant us devoting time and public money to investigating.
7. Dr X refers to his time and inconvenience; however, those are not significant enough injustices to warrant investigating. This is because these issues arose from Dr X’s choice to pursue a matter than had not, in itself, caused significant injustice.
8. Dr X further complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Dr X’s complaint because there is not significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman