Transport for London’s (TfL) Auto Pay system, designed for seamless payment of congestion charges and tunnel tolls, has ensnared a Surrey resident’s 85-year-old father in a billing dispute stemming from a vehicle he sold more than a year ago. The case, highlighted by Fiona in a letter to The Times, underscores potential vulnerabilities in automated payment systems and the challenges individuals face when attempting to resolve billing errors with large public bodies.
Fiona’s father sold a personalised number plate in October 2025, having not driven for over three years. Despite the sale and the inactivity of his account, TfL issued a £200 bill in December 2025 for congestion charge payments incurred by the new owner of the number plate. TfL applied the charges to his dormant Auto Pay account, citing the original terms and conditions agreed to when he first signed up for the service.
The crux of the issue lies in TfL’s apparent failure to verify the continued validity of the account or the ownership of the vehicle associated with it. Despite Fiona providing evidence demonstrating her father was no longer the registered keeper, TfL initially refused to waive the charges. The situation escalated to the point where a debt collection agency was involved, raising the specter of bailiffs visiting her vulnerable father.
This case isn’t isolated. Recent reports indicate similar issues with ULEZ and congestion charge fines. A separate case, reported in The Times on , details an individual being wrongly pursued for fines accrued by a different vehicle, again highlighting a potential systemic issue with TfL’s account management and verification processes. Another report details a situation where an individual was pulled over by police due to false ULEZ fines issued by TfL, further demonstrating the real-world consequences of these errors.
The Auto Pay system, while intended to simplify payments, appears to lack robust mechanisms for account termination or vehicle de-registration. The terms and conditions, while legally binding, seem to prioritize TfL’s revenue collection over diligent account management and customer service. The fact that Fiona possessed a power of attorney for her father was initially disregarded by TfL agents, further compounding the difficulties in resolving the dispute.
The situation was only resolved after intervention from Holly Thomas of The Times, who contacted TfL on Fiona’s behalf. Following this intervention, TfL issued a full apology and a refund of the £200. TfL justified its initial stance by reiterating that account holders are responsible for updating vehicle registrations, but acknowledged that its handling of the case was inadequate. The agency stated it had used its discretion to refund the charges and close the account.
This incident raises broader questions about the responsibilities of automated payment providers and the protections afforded to consumers. While TfL’s terms and conditions may technically support its initial actions, the lack of proactive account verification and the persistence in pursuing charges against a demonstrably ineligible party raise ethical concerns. The delay in resolving the issue, despite repeated attempts by Fiona, also points to potential deficiencies in TfL’s customer service protocols.
The case also highlights the difficulties individuals face when dealing with large bureaucratic organizations. Fiona’s experience of being repeatedly directed to customer service representatives who offered no resolution, and the inability to escalate the issue effectively, is a common frustration for consumers navigating complex systems. The initial refusal to recognize her power of attorney further complicated matters, demonstrating a lack of flexibility and a rigid adherence to procedure.
In a separate, related case detailed in the same article, a woman named Susan experienced similar difficulties with ReAssure, a financial services company, when attempting to withdraw £6,000 from a bond to pay her tax bill. Despite requesting the withdrawal in December 2025, the funds were not released for over a month, causing significant stress and requiring her to draw on savings from Premium Bonds to meet her tax obligations. Like Fiona’s experience, Susan’s issue was only resolved after intervention from The Times, resulting in a full refund and £500 in compensation.
Both cases underscore a pattern of administrative inertia and a lack of responsiveness from large organizations. While these issues were ultimately resolved through media intervention, many consumers may not have access to such resources, leaving them vulnerable to unfair billing practices and protracted disputes. TfL advises account holders to manage their registered vehicles online, but the incident suggests that even diligent account management may not be sufficient to prevent errors and disputes.
As of , Your Money Matters has reportedly saved readers a total of £255,762 this year, demonstrating the ongoing need for consumer advocacy and independent investigation of financial disputes.
