The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr D complains the Authority incorrectly pursued payment of toll charge fees. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault by the Authority and has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.
The complaint
The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Authority has wrongly pursued payment of toll charge fees and additional costs. He also says the Authority has not adequately communicated with him.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered the information supplied by Mr D along with evidence from the Authority.
I shared my draft decision with both parties.
What I found
What happened In February 2021 Mr D used the Tyne Tunnel and purchased a toll ticket which had to be paid by midnight of the following day. Mr D says he was unable to pay because the only options were online or by telephone and his bank card did not have this facility. The Authority automatically issued an Unpaid Toll Charge Notice (Notice) on 11 March and explained the right to appeal. Mr D did appeal that month and the Authority responded explaining why it did not accept his appeal. However, as a goodwill gesture it reset the period of the debt which meant if Mr D paid within 14 days it would be at the initial rate with additional fees.
In April Mr D incurred a second Notice for unpaid use of the toll system. Mr D pursued appeals which were not upheld. On 23 June the Authority notified him that, due to non-payment, the matter would be referred to a debt collection agency.
The Ombudsman started an investigation at the end of August. After further consideration of the case the Authority wrote to Mr D on 1 November. It explained that both Notices were outstanding with a total debt of £353.60. The Notices had not been issued in error, but it had taken into account his situation. It would recall the cases from the debt collection agency and reinstate the original decision. This meant the debt would reduce to the original charges of £63.60 if he paid within 14 days. If he was still unable to pay online or by telephone, he should contact the Authority and they would arrange an alternative method of payment.
What should have happened When a driver uses the Tyne Tunnel they have to pay a toll charge. They have the option of purchasing a ticket and paying by midnight of the following day. Payment is made by telephone or online. This is set out on the Authority website and at the point of purchase. If payment is not made the Authority will automatically issue a Notice requesting payment. It offers a fee of £30 plus the toll if payment is made within 14 days, after that the fee rises to £60 plus the toll.
There is a right of appeal and the Authority will consider whether it has acted in error. It will send the client a decision explaining its view.
Where a final notice for payment has not been complied with, the Authority will refer the case to a debt management company to pursue collection of the unpaid debt.
Was there fault by the Authority I have not seen any fault by the Authority in this case. It followed its standard process when issuing the Notices and complied with its procedures in respect of pursuing the debt. Mr D’s appeals were considered again in line with procedures. The Authority is not responsible for any payment restrictions a person may have on their bank card. However, it still offered Mr D the option to pay a reduced fee in March. When Mr D did not accept the offer and then incurred a further Notice the Authority had the right to pursue debt enforcement. It considered Mr D’s appeals and explained its decisions to him.
I note the Authority has offered Mr D a goodwill gesture which would have reduced his debt from £353.60 to £63.60. There was no statutory duty on the Authority to make that offer. I am unaware if the offer was accepted by Mr D but the Authority gave him the option to put himself back to a position he would have faced if he paid the Notices within 14 days of receipt.
Mr D also states the Authority did not communicate with him. The Authority sets out the appeals process in the Notices. Mr D used that facility and received an explanation for the decisions reached. I see no evidence of fault in this matter.
I appreciate Mr D does not agree with decisions taken by the Authority. However, I am satisfied the Authority has acted in line with its policies and procedures. As such, the Ombudsman will not question the merits of the decisions taken in this matter.
Final decision
I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman