Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London wrongly charging Mr X for driving in its ultra-low and low emission zones, and failing to refund his payment. This is because the issue is now resolved and Transport for London has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £100. This provides a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains Transport for London (TfL) wrongly charged him for driving in the ultra-low and low emission zones and failed to refund his payments, totalling more than £900, for four months. Mr X says he suffered stress and went to considerable time and trouble to resolve the issue.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

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. TfL accepted in January 2026 that Mr X did not need to pay the charges and was therefore entitled to a refund of his payment. However, it could not issue a refund by cheque as it usually would because Mr X has a foreign bank account. TfL therefore requested additional information from Mr X in February 2026 and the evidence I have seen shows Mr X provided this almost immediately.
6. Although TfL still has not refunded Mr X’s payment it confirms Mr X made a chargeback request through his bank in May 2026. This was successful and Mr X has therefore received a refund of the full amount of his payment.
7. However, Mr X was left without the use of his money, which is a considerable amount, for some four months. I accept this caused him significant injustice which remains unremedied. I have therefore invited TfL to provide a remedy to Mr X and TfL, to its credit, has agreed to our proposal.

Back to top

Agreed actions

8. TfL has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £100. It will complete the agreed remedy within four weeks of today’s date.
9. The remedy payment is not an award of compensation but rather a symbolic remedy to acknowledge the impact the delay in returning the payment had on Mr X and the time and effort he went to, to resolve the issue.
10. The remedy agreed is consistent with other similar cases and provides a suitable resolution to the complaint. It is therefore unlikely further investigation would achieve significantly more for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has now received his money back and TfL has agreed to apologise and pay him £100. This provides a suitable remedy for the injustice caused and it is unlikely investigation would achieve significantly more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman