Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in renewing a discount for road-user charges. Any injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Dr B complains the Council delayed renewing their discount for London’s Congestion Charge and use of certain road tunnels (the zones). They say this prevented them using the zones and they experienced inconvenience by having to contact the Council and resubmit their application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

2. I considered information provided by the complainant.
3. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council renewed Dr B’s discount for entering the zones four days after it expired. Neither this nor the time Dr B spent liaising with the Council and resubmitting his application amount to significant enough personal injustice to warrant investigation.
5. Not having a discount in place did not prevent Dr B from using the zones. Even if Dr B had chosen to enter the zones whilst their discount renewal application was being processed, any costs incurred would be unlikely to amount to significant enough injustice for us to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Dr B’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman