Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that Transport for London refused to transfer a property lease to company B and caused significant costs. Mr X or his company has a legal remedy at court which it is reasonable for him to use.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains for company B that Transport for London ‘agreed’ to let a property to it. He says after 6 months of negotiation Transport for London withdrew the ‘agreement’ without notice or a proper explanation. Mr X says Transport for London should provide a property in the same location or pay compensation of 35,000 pounds to cover expenses.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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

4. I considered Mr X’s information and comments. The information includes correspondence with Transport for London and its reply to the complaint.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint for the following reasons:
6. The complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because there is a remedy at court if Transport for London broke contract law, a binding agreement, or is otherwise legally responsible for company B’s expenses (see paragraph 3 above).
7. I consider it reasonable for company B to use the legal remedy because a court has the power to decide such a claim and award compensation. Mr X told Transport for London, in his complaint, he was taking legal advice on recovering expenses.
8. Investigation is not likely to provide Mr X with the outcome he wants. We cannot impose on Transport for London an obligation to company B which does not exist in law. The property lease was with company A which asked Transport for London to consider transferring the lease to company B. Transport for London indicated it was prepared to do this subject to agreement on the terms of a lease. However, following a survey of the condition of the property, and having regard to other property works, it decided it needed an empty property. It has therefore taken the property back from company A and will complete the works before considering a new lease. Transport for London has explained why it believes it acted properly. It says any costs incurred by Mr X’s company were at its own risk. Such a dispute is a matter for a court.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that Transport for London refused to transfer a property lease to company B and caused significant costs. Mr X or his company has a legal remedy at court which it is reasonable for him to use.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman