The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s refusal to refund an ultra low emission zone payment. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the authority and the issue does not cause Mr X significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains about Transport for London’s (TfL’s) refund policy for ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) charge payments. He says his friend paid the charge for two days but only needed to pay for one; TfL has declined to refund the extra charge.
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 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 an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way TfL applied its policy and its decision does not affect Mr X personally. The claimed injustice to Mr X’s friend is not significant enough to warrant investigation in any event.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman