Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about Transport for London’s handling of a complaint about a taxi price comparison company. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by Transport for London.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains about Transport for London’s (TfL’s) handling of her complaint about a taxi price comparison company.

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) ]

3. We cannot investigate a complaint where the body complained about is not responsible for the issue being raised. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mrs X’s complaint, made enquiries of TfL and considered its response. I shared my draft decision with Mrs X and invited her comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs X booked a return taxi journey via a price comparison site in mid-2019. She complains about the outward journey and says the driver was an hour late to pick her up on the way home. As a result she called a different taxi company which charged her £220.
6. Mrs X has raised the issue with the price comparison site and they agreed to refund her for the return journey, but Mrs X wants the company to issue a full refund. She contacted TfL to investigate the matter but it told her the complaint was late. Mrs X queried this and explained she had been trying to resolve the matter with the company directly. TfL then explained it could not deal with the matter further in any case as it does not licence the company or the driver.
7. Mrs X is unhappy with TfL’s response and wants it to investigate the company. She says the driver was aggressive and reckless in his driving and she wants a refund for her booking.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Mrs X booked her journey with a price comparison site and if she believes she is entitled to a refund she would need to follow the matter up with them. Neither TfL nor the Ombudsman have jurisdiction over the company and we cannot say they must refund Mrs X’s payment. It is therefore unlikely we would find fault in TfL’s handling of this issue.
9. Mrs X has also raised concerns about the driver but her concerns are, at this stage, more appropriate for the Police. TfL suggests it did not issue the driver a licence and it cannot therefore suspend or revoke his licence.
10. In the event the driver is convicted of an offence it would be for the licensing authority to decide whether the driver remains a fit and proper person to hold a licence or whether to suspend or revoke their licence.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by TfL.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman