Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a warning issued by Transport for London in 2022 because it is late and there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate it now. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an advisory issued in 2025 because Transport for London has taken sufficient action to remedy the issue.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a private hire driver licensed by Transport for London (TfL). He complains about warnings issued by TfL in relation to his conduct in 2022 and 2024.
2. Mr X says TfL’s actions have caused him stress, anxiety and loss of earnings. He says he was scared for his livelihood and TfL took too long to resolve the issue.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something an organisation has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

2024 incident

8. TfL issued Mr X an advisory letter in June 2025 concerning his conduct following an allegation made in 2024. Mr X sought further information about the allegation and discovered it was not against him but a third party. He raised this with TfL in August 2025 and TfL investigated and responded in September 2025, a month later. TfL acknowledged the allegation did not concern Mr X and agreed, as requested, to remove the advisory from his file and delete all reference to it.
9. Mr X was not happy with TfL’s response or the amount of time TfL had taken to deal with the issue and sought legal assistance to pursue the matter further. Mr X’s legal advisors wrote again to TfL in January 2026 accusing TfL of “gross negligence” and asking for further information about how the incident occurred. Mr X says TfL did not respond to this letter.
10. 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.
11. I will not investigate this issue further because I am satisfied TfL’s actions provide a suitable remedy for Mr X and it is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve significantly more for him.
12. I understand Mr X had a period of uncertainty about what would happen while TfL investigated the incident but his main injustice stems from the outcome of its investigation and its decision to issue the advisory, which it took in June 2025.
13. The advisory did not stop Mr X from working and when he obtained information to show he was not responsible TfL acted promptly on the information he provided. It removed the advisory and any reference to the incident from his file and this puts him back in the position he would have been, had the issue not occurred. Any remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation or a further remedy and we cannot decide whether TfL’s actions amounted to negligence or recommend it pays him compensation for loss of earnings. If Mr X wishes to pursue these points further it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court.
14. I note Mr X is also unhappy about TfL’s handling of his complaint but it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

2022 incident

15. TfL issued Mr X a formal warning in 2022 for an incident which took place in 2021. As part of Mr X’s complaint about the 2025 advisory Mr X’s legal advisors also asked TfL to remove the warning from 2022 from his file. TfL refused, stating there were several reasons for retaining the warning.
16. The January 2026 letter raised several concerns about the 2022 warning, including that it was not properly formulated and did not advise Mr X of his right of appeal.
17. I will not investigate this issue further because it is some three years late and I have seen no good reasons why Mr X could not have raised the matter with us sooner. Mr X was aware of the warning at the time and had he felt it was incorrect or that TfL’s investigation did not take account of relevant issues it would have been reasonable for him to complain to us about it then.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X’s complaint about the 2022 warning is late and TfL has taken suitable action to remedy the injustice caused by the 2025 advisory.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman