The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about debt collection agency fees being added to unpaid toll charge notices. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X says that when the tunnel authority passes an unpaid toll charge notice (UTCN) to its debt collection agencies (DCA), these agencies add a fee to the UTCN. Mr X complains the tunnel authority is not allowed to charge this as it is not a genuine cost arising out of the failure to pay the toll. This is because he considers the tunnel authority does not pay the DCAs unless they successfully recover money.
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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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
Section 42, paragraph 5 of The River Tyne (Tunnels) Order 2005 states: “where tolls payable under or by virtue of this Order remain unpaid after they have become due for payment, the person to whom they are payable may recover from the person liable to pay them the amount of the tolls together with all other reasonable costs and expenses including administrative expenses, enforcement expenses and interest arising out of any such failure to pay.”
Mr X considers the fees charged by DCAs are not allowed under this as the tunnel authority does not incur this expense unless the DCA successfully recovers the money.
The tunnel authority has considered Mr X’s points and explained to Mr X that it considers the DCAs are entitled to claim the costs of the enforcement they carry out. It also said it was standard practice to employ the services of a DCA to collect debt. The authority advised Mr X to challenge its interpretation through the Courts.
The tunnel authority has appropriately considered Mr X’s points. It has exercised its judgment and explained to Mr X why it considers the fees can be applied under the provisions of the 2005 Order. We acknowledge Mr X disputes the Council’s interpretation and believes his interpretation is the correct one. However, this is a matter for the Courts to decide, not the Ombudsman.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman