The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Transport for London cancelling his auto pay account without telling him. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.
The complaint
Mr X complains Transport for London cancelled his auto pay account without telling him. This resulted in several penalty charge notices being issued.
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 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), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X set up his auto pay account in March 2023. The auto pay account would automatically debit him whenever he drove into the congestion charge zones, including the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). Mr X said this worked as intended for a couple of journeys.
At the end of December 2023, Mr X said he received several penalty charge notices (PCN) stating he had been driving in ULEZ zones without payment. Mr X said when he complained, he was told that his account had been closed. Mr X said TfL failed to notify him of any problem with his account, or that it had closed its account in November 2023.
TfL explained it had suspended Mr X’s account due to a failed payment. As Mr X failed to bring the account up to date, the Council then closed the account. TfL provided evidence to us that it had sent three emails to Mr X. The first email, sent in early November, detailed that there had been a payment failure. The second emails, sent a week later, detailed that his account had been suspended and that if he were to drive in the congestion zones, he needed to pay for these journeys using an alternative payment method. The final email, sent at the end of November, detailed that the autopay account had been closed.
Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because TfL had provided Mr X with sufficient information and notice that his account would be suspended, and then closed, if payment was not made to bring his account up to date. It was for Mr X to act on the emails sent to him.
TfL have also confirmed that, despite the PCNs being correctly issued, it has agreed for Mr X to pay just £12.50 per PCN; the equivalent of the daily charge. TfL also confirmed it had written off the outstanding auto pay balance.
Therefore, an investigation is not proportionate as TfL have made an offer to resolve the matter which goes beyond what we could have achieved given we are not likely to find fault.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman