Summary: Ms B complains Transport for London (TFL) delayed repairing a broken drain cover outside her home. The Ombudsman has found evidence of fault by TFL and upheld the complaint. He has completed the investigation because TFL agrees to take action including paying redress to Ms B.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms B) says TFL took nine months to repair a broken drain cover outside her home. When traffic went over the cover it caused a noise issue.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. He 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, he may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1))
3. If we are satisfied with a council’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

4. I have spoken to Ms B and considered the information she provided. I asked TFL questions and carefully examined its response.
5. I have shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. On 3 May 2018 Ms B contacted TFL to report a damaged drain cover outside her home on the highway, it was causing a lot of noise. On 16 May Ms B chased up TFL for an update. The Customer Services Team contacted the Asset Operations Team who stated an Officer had visited the site and it was “resolved”. No other details were given. On 29 May Ms B called TFL again stating no work had been done and attached a photograph showing the faulty drain cover. On 31 May Customer Services forwarded the case to Asset Operations.
7. On 1 June Asset Operations noted the drain had been checked and was noise free. Again, there are no corroborating papers of the inspection. On 4 June TFL wrote to Ms B after she reported ongoing problems. It asked for more photographs of the drain. Ms B sent those the same day with photographs from May and June clearly showing the drain had not been repaired. On 5 June Customer Services forwarded the case to Asset Operations who stated the site had been checked on 1 June and no works were needed.
8. On 10 July Ms B emailed TFL stating the drain was getting worse and the noise increasing. Again, the case was referred to Asset Operations the same day. On 17 July that Team noted there was “rutting around the drain cover” causing noise. A work order would be raised to fix it. TFL wrote to Ms B explaining what would happen and that a work order had been raised “to fix this as soon as possible”. It said she should “notice an improvement soon”. No date was given for the work. On 2 August Ms B chased up TFL. She sent an email a week later asking why no repairs had been done and a further email on 15 August. That day Customer Services asked Asset Operations for an update. An email to the Asset Operations Manager stated, “this has been going on since May” and despite a work order request in July “this still hasn’t been fixed”. The Officer was asked to “take urgent action on this”.
9. On 24 August Officers met Ms B at the site, no notes were made of the meeting but in a subsequent email Officers stated they had “agreed to take remedial action to reduce the noise…in the next couple of weeks”. This accords with Ms B’s recollection of Officers telling her the matter would be quickly resolved. I note that in TFL’s response to my enquiries one of the Officers dealing with the case has stated the drain was not making a noise when he visited in August and he told Ms B no work was needed. That does not match the contemporaneous records held by TFL.
10. At some point between September and November a temporary repair was made to the drain. I have no records to show when that took place. On 9 November Ms B contacted TFL because the temporary repair had failed. Customer Services asked Asset Operations when another temporary repair and then a permanent repair would be done. The Asset Operations Team responded, incorrectly, that after meeting Ms B in August there was no need for any repairs but it would inspect again. An Officer subsequently inspected the drain (I have no records) and TFL noted the drain was causing more noise and “will be repaired prior to Christmas”. On 12 December Ms B asked TFL if the works would be done that year. TFL forwarded this to Asset Operations for an update. It sent another chaser on 8 January 2019. After further contact from Ms B yet another chaser was sent to the Team on 22 January and again on 28 January. Ms B said she wanted to escalate matters and pursued her case with TFL.
11. On 31 January, the Asset Operations Team internal emails show the repair had been priced but needed approval. On 2 February, an Officer emailed “this is very overdue”. On 4 February, the drain was repaired and I have seen records of the works. On 5 February Ms B asked TFL why it had taken so long to resolve and that she should receive some redress for her inconvenience. TFL replied on 13 February. It said action had been taken to repair the drain “as a result of our consistency in escalating the severity of your report”. It failed to explain any reasons for the delay or to offer redress.

What should have happened

12. A customer will contact TFL’s Customer Services to report a repair issue. Customer Services will log the contact and if appropriate forward the request to the Asset Operations Team to see if a repair is needed. An Officer would visit the site and inspect and decide if works are required. If a repair is needed TFL issue a work order and their contractor will attend. TFL says that for loose drain covers which do not pose a severe hazard the target to do a permanent repair is 28 days.

Was there fault by TFL

13. TFL has told me the only delay was in raising a work order for a permanent repair. It says the request was noted on 19 December 2018 but took a month to issue. That is not correct. TFL has failed to recognise the discrepancies in its comments to me and the numerous delays and errors in its handling of this case.
14. It is important to note that TFL has provided very limited records to the Ombudsman. I have not seen any notes of visits and inspections or work orders other than for the final permanent repair work done in February 2019. I would expect a record of these key actions to be made and retained as good practice. However even from the limited evidence provided to me it is evident there are significant failures by TFL.
15. TFL has told me that a temporary repair was carried out in May 2018: that is wrong. I have no evidence to show a repair was done and the photographs provided by Ms B to TFL show that no repairs were carried out in May or June. It remains unclear when a temporary repair was done but it was not until after August.
16. TFL also told me the repair carried out in May lasted until December. Again, this is clearly incorrect given no work was done in May. Furthermore, TFL’s records show that it accepted repairs were needed in July and that a work order should be raised “as soon as possible”. Despite this, no action was taken again. Ms B had to continue pursuing TFL to try and progress matters. She was told at the end of August the work would be done within a couple of weeks and still no action was taken by TFL. It was only as a result of persistent pressure from Ms B that TFL finally issued a work order in January 2019. The delays in this case are unacceptable. At the very least TFL accepted by mid-July that work was needed as soon as possible and within a couple of weeks. I would therefore have expected a repair to fix the problem to be done by the start of August at the very latest. Instead no action at all was taken until January 2019 and the repair was completed in February: a delay of at least six months.
17. I also note the complaint response to Ms B was poor. It failed to recognise the severe delays and faults by TFL. It also did not consider the request for redress for time and trouble or explain why the errors had occurred.

Did the fault cause an injustice

18. TFL’s poor handling of this case meant Ms B had to repeatedly call and email it to chase up any action. It was only as a result of her persistence the repair was finally completed. She was put to unnecessary time and trouble.

Agreed action

19. TFL has agreed to:

• Pay Ms B £200 for the time and trouble she was put to as a result of its repeated failings;
• Pay Ms B £150 for the noise and distress she suffered as a result of the six-month delay to carry out the repair;
• Set out for the Ombudsman what improvements will be made to record keeping for site visits and for complaint responses in view of the faults identified in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman