Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an incident in an underground station. This is because it is unlikely he could add to the Authority’s response or that an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, says she was intimidated, bullied and held hostage at an underground station.

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 an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Authority, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Authority’s response. I considered comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X says she was treated badly at an underground station. She says she tried to get through the gate using her rail pass but staff were rude, aggressive and hostile. She says she was bullied, sworn at and virtually held hostage in the station. Mrs X now avoids that station for fear of not being let out of the gate. Mrs X says she was using a valid rail pass and had travelled to the station using rail services, not the underground. Mrs X complained to the Authority.
5. The Authority interviewed staff and viewed the CCTV. The Authority established that Mrs X was using a rail staff pass that it says was not valid for the gate she used. The Authority saw, on the CCTV, that Mrs X was allowed through the gate after about 10 seconds and was free to leave the station. It also established that images showed Mrs X approaching members of staff and staff moving away from Mrs X. Some staff reported feeling uncomfortable due to Mrs X’s behaviour. The CCTV did not have sound.
6. The Authority said it could not prove or disprove Mrs X’s allegations. It did not uphold the complaint.

Assessment

7. I will not start an investigation because it is unlikely I could add to the Authority’s response or that an investigation would lead to a different outcome. Mrs X says staff treated her badly and were reluctant to let her through the gate. She says she was sworn at and abused and nobody was prepared to help her. She also says staff refused to give their names. Conversely, the Authority says staff let Mrs X through the gate and it found no evidence to support Mrs X’s allegations.
8. I have no reason to doubt what Mrs X reports or to question the Authority’s findings. However, I did not witness the incident and the CCTV has been deleted. On this basis it is unlikely an investigation would find evidence to add to the Authority’s response or to uphold Mrs X’s allegations. I cannot view any CCTV and, in any case, there was no sound. It is also unlikely staff would give a different response to the one they gave to their managers. In some respects Mrs X is making allegations of crime and the Ombudsman does not investigate crime.
9. The Authority acted appropriately by considering the complaint, viewing the CCTV and interviewing staff. From an administrative perspective that is what we would expect it to do.
10. Mrs X says the Authority did not signpost her to the Ombudsman. I have seen that the Authority suggested she could contact Travelwatch but I have not seen a signpost to the Ombudsman. The Authority should invite people to contact the Ombudsman at the end of the complaints process. However, this omission does not need an investigation and Mrs X did complain to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not start an investigation because it is unlikely I could add to the Authority’s response or that an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman