The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s responses to Mr X’s questions about Tyne Tunnel Unpaid Toll Charge Notices. This is because Mr X is not caused a level of injustice to warrant our involvement and we cannot question the validity of the bye law in question.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Authority has failed to properly explain the legality of its charges levied through Unpaid Toll Charge Notices (UTCN) for non-payment of toll charges when using the Tyne Tunnel. Mr X is caused frustration and annoyance by this.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
While I recognise Mr X remains unhappy with the responses to his questions about UTCNs, this is not sufficient personal injustice to warrant our involvement.
In addition, our role is to investigate administrative functions of bodies in our jurisdiction. This does not include legislative functions, such as the making of bye laws. We have no remit to comment on the validity of the charges levied under the bye law.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he is not caused sufficient personal injustice to warrant our involvement and we have no remit to challenge the Council’s bye law in question.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman