Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about wrongful charges made by Transport for London for driving in the ultra-low emission zone. This is because the amount of the charges is only £25 and this is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains Transport for London (TfL) wrongly charged her for entering the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) when the vehicle to which the charges relate was not hers. TfL has since refunded four of the charges but Ms X believes it should refund two more, along with a third for a charge she incurred as a result of a diversion.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and TfL.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
6. I appreciate Ms X is frustrated TfL charged her for trips into the ULEZ which she did not make but it has refunded most of these charges. It has also now agreed to refund Ms X for the journey into the ULEZ which she says resulted from a diversion. There are therefore two charges outstanding which TfL says it is satisfied were correct and these amount to only £25. This amount is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice Ms X claims is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman