Summary: There was fault by Transport for London (TfL) in its response to Mr X’s complaint which said he could not use his on-line oyster account without a mobile phone. This meant Mr X could not access information in the account like his payment history which caused avoidable inconvenience and confusion. TfL will apologise, make Mr X a symbolic payment and take action set out in this statement to minimise the chance of the same thing happening again.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained Transport for London’s (TfL’s) policy around information security is too rigid and this unfairly prevented him from using his on-line oyster account.
2. Mr X has hearing loss and he finds it hard to hear people using a mobile phone so he does not have one. He says TfL should be able to set up another form of authentication, such as email. He says other organisations can do this. Mr X feels angry and isolated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. A public body should not adopt a blanket approach or policy that prevents it from considering the circumstances of a particular case. We may find fault in the actions of bodies that ‘fetter their discretion’ in this way.
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered Mr X’s complaint to us, TfL’s responses and information from TfL.
7. Mr X and TfL had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and policy

8. Our Principles of Good Administrative Practice set out our expectations of public bodies in our remit. We expect organisations to:
• Follow their own policy and guidance;
• Ensure people can access services easily, including those needing reasonable adjustments;
• Adopt an inclusive approach; and
• Acknowledge mistakes and putting them right quickly and effectively.
9. Under the Equality Act 2010, public sector organisations including TfL must make changes in their services to ensure they are accessible to people with disabilities. These changes are called ‘reasonable adjustments’.
10. Chapter Seven of the Code of Practice to the Equality Act (Services, Public Functions and Associations), about the duty to make reasonable adjustments says:
• 7.6 and 7.7: For service providers exercising public functions: where not providing an auxiliary aid puts disabled people at a substantial disadvantage compared with those who are not disabled, to provide that auxiliary aid;
• 7.47: an auxiliary aid or service is anything which provides additional support or assistance to a disabled person, including equipment, a signer and extra staff assistance; and
• 7.23: Where disabled customers request services, the service provide must already have taken all reasonable steps to ensure they can be served.
11. TfL’s Equality Objectives (November 2021) set out its commitment to promoting equality for customers. Objective One is customer service. TfL says ‘it must ensure transport is inclusive for everyone, with consistent customer service which considers all aspects of diversity and social impact.’
12. Oyster cards are smart cards which users can add money to and use for travel on public transport in London. People can create an online oyster account to register their card, check credit and top up, check their payment history, report lost and stolen cards and apply for refunds or replacements.
13. Online oyster accounts are protected by multi factor authentication (MFA). People must provide a mobile phone number as a form of authentication. This strengthens information security and protects against threats that target user passwords and accounts by requiring two methods to check the person’s identity.
14. Information on TfL’s website on a page called ‘protecting your Oyster and contactless accounts’ says “if you do not have a mobile phone, we can still support you. Call us on for any questions about oyster.”

What happened

15. TFL introduced MFA at the start of 2023 to improve account security after a security breach in 2019. It explained it had taken three years put in place text authentication which is to ensure only account holders can access their account.
16. Mr X has an oyster card. He complained to TfL he could not log on to his oyster account as it asked him for a mobile number and he did not have one. TfL replied saying he needed a mobile for authentication and this was mandatory to access his online account. Mr X replied saying he found the response unsatisfactory and said TfL was discriminating against him as a deaf person. TfL told him he needed to supply a mobile number for data protection reasons. Mr X tried to escalate his complaint. TfL referred him to its complaints process which signposted him to the LGSCO.
17. TfL told me:
• It was sorry Mr X did not receive the support he needed;
• Its customer service team could process refunds or arrange for journey history statements to be sent to people by email, either regularly or when required;
• Customers can also top-up their oyster cards at stations, check journey history at ticket machines and station staff can support with oyster card enquiries.

Findings

18. TfL told Mr X in its response to his complaint that MFA was mandatory. This was an incomplete and unhelpful complaint response in the context of a customer with disabilities and was fault causing avoidable inconvenience and confusion. The complaint response did not set out the available alternatives and assistance for Mr X if he wanted to access the information in his on-line account. The failure to include information about the alternative support Mr X could have meant TfL’s complaint response was not in line with Paragraphs 7.6, 7.7 or 7.23 of the Code of Practice to the Equality Act, with TfL’s Equality Objectives or with our Principles of Good Administrative Practice.
19. TfL does have an accessible service to support Mr X to get the information held in his on-line account without the need for him to have a mobile phone. During this investigation, it has explained it can send Mr X regular statements of account by email and he can ask staff at the station for support or check his account at a ticket machine. This is in line with the Code of Practice to the Equality Act which requires the provision of auxiliary aids such as additional staff support to ensure equal access for customers with disabilities.

Back to top

Agreed action

20. Within one month TfL will:
• Apologise for the inadequate complaint response and for the avoidable time and trouble complaining;
• Make Mr X a symbolic payment of £100 to reflect the confusion caused by inadequate information about alternative ways of accessing his on-line account;
• Provide Mr X with journey histories by email at a frequency of his choice; and
• Brief staff in the customer service team about the availability of additional support for customers who wish to access their oyster account but who do not have a mobile phone on account of a disability.
21. The Authority should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

22. There was fault by Transport for London (TfL) in its response to Mr X’s complaint that he could not use his on-line oyster account without a mobile phone. This caused avoidable confusion and inconvenience and meant Mr X could not use his on-line account. TfL will apologise, make Mr X a symbolic payment and take action set out in this statement to minimise the chance of the same thing happening again.
23. I completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman