Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that Transport for London has lied to her about CCTV footage showing an accident she had on public transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by Transport for London and it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Miss X. If Miss X believes Transport for London has failed to provide her with information she is entitled to she should complain to the Information Commissioner. If she believes Transport for London is responsible for her accident she may wish to take action against the authority at court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains Transport for London (TfL) failed to provide her with CCTV footage of an accident on public transport which resulted in her being injured.

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)
3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says TfL told her there is no CCTV footage of her accident but she claims this is a lie. She says TfL has deleted the footage or failed to properly trace it.
6. Miss X has provided no evidence in support of her assertions about TfL and her injustice lies in the injuries she suffered as a result of the accident. These are not the result of any issues obtaining the footage, regardless of whether it has been deleted or withheld from Miss X.
7. If Miss X believes TfL has failed to comply with the General Data Protection Regulations in its handling of CCTV footage as personal data, she may wish to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner. But is it unlikely we could achieve anything for Miss X by investigating her complaint further as we could not show TfL has wrongly denied Miss X access to the footage, not least for the fact she claims it has told her it does not exist.
8. If Miss X believes, for whatever reason, that TfL is responsible for her injuries she may wish to make a claim against the authority at court.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by TfL and it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Miss X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman