Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a mistaken road user charge. This is because we could not achieve more for the complainant so the matter does not warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B is unhappy Transprot for London (TfL) caused him the injustice of having to dispute a road user charge. This happened when its cameras misread the registration number of someone else’s vehicle driving in the area and charged Mr B’s auto-pay account instead of the correct one. Mr B says TfL’s systems were more difficult for him to use as he is dyslexic, and he considers its apologies are not enough to put right his injustice.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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. TfL has investigated and resolved the conflict, refunded the relevant fees, and apologised for the original misread number plate.
6. TfL has also recognized the time and effort Mr B incurred but says in mitigation:
• he had not verified his email address when creating his account, so he did not receive its emails; and
• when he contacted it to question the charges it was already too late for it to examine the camera images to investigate further.
7. It is therefore unlikely the Ombudsman could hold TfL responsible for what happened and seek more from it than it has already done.
8. I recognise using TfL’s systems might be more difficult for Mr B than for other people, but it has explained the adjustments it makes to meet different needs. Only the courts can decide whether TfL has met its duties under the Equality Act 2010, so the Ombudsman could achieve nothing more for Mr B by investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we could not achieve more, so the matter does not warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman