Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the process and timescale for payment of the Mersey Gateway bridge toll. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council or that we could achieve anything more for Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the timescale for payment of the Mersey Gateway bridge toll. He says the Council’s systems did not confirm his payment immediately and as a result he ended up paying twice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X crossed the Mersey Gateway toll bridge in December 2019. He paid the toll that evening and says he spent the evening checking for a confirmation email which did not arrive. He called his bank and they confirmed the transaction was successful.
5. The following morning he telephoned the Council but they could not locate his payment. He contacted his bank again and they told him his payment had been rejected. He therefore telephoned the Council again. The adviser he spoke to suggested he pay again so he did this. He has since found out both transactions were processed so he paid the toll fees twice.
6. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The Charging Order sets the timescale for payment of the toll and this is legally binding. We cannot say the Council must change the law to allow more time for payment as Mr X would like and it is not fault for the Council to operate the charging scheme in accordance with the legislation.
7. Mr X paid the toll fees twice, and therefore overpaid by £4, but this is not a significant enough amount to warrant our further investigation. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X £20 to resolve the matter and it is unlikely we would recommend any further remedy.
8. In the event any motorist’s payment to the Council fails, which is not what happened here, and if the Council issues them a penalty charge notice for non-payment they may appeal. The Council’s system may not immediately recognise payment but this would not necessarily be resolved by extending the time limit for payment and it is a point which can be considered as part of an appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council or that we could achieve anything more for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman