Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about TfL’s failure to respond to his correspondence and complaints. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault causing Mr X significant injustice warranting our further involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains Transport for London (TfL) failed to properly respond to his correspondence including his subject access request and did not address his complaints. He says this caused stress, inconvenience and distress and wasted his time and resources.

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed the information provided by Mr X, shared my draft decision with him and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X registered a new online road user charging account with TfL in 2014.
6. On 4 April 2020, Mr X contacted TfL asking it to provide details of his account. TfL responded on 14 April 2020; it was unable to locate Mr X’s account using the details he provided so asked him to email again with the full name and address registered on the account.
7. Mr X emailed TfL but he says his email was rejected. He wrote to TfL on 15 June 2020 asking that it update his address and ensure his vehicle details were correctly recorded. He also complained about TfL’s failure to identify his account from his original email and about the rejection of his email. His letter stated “Fourth provide by way of a Subject Access Request all and any information which you hold or have ever held in relation to myself…”
8. Mr X wrote to TfL again in December 2020. He said his correspondence had been returned by Royal Mail and the envelope marked to show it had been refused by a different company. He sent a copy of his letter from June 2020 and complained further about TfL’s failure to respond to it.
9. TfL responded by email to Mr X on 9 February 2021. It explained his road user charging account was obsolete and suggested this was the result of the account being inactive with no service or discount linked to it. It provided a link for Mr X to create a new account and sent him a form for his subject access request.
10. Mr X responded to TfL the same day. He stated “Firstly, at no time have I ever made a Subject Data Access Request and I see no reason why you have now suggested that I have done so….” He complained TfL had not responded within 10 working days as it said it would and that it had not informed him it had closed his account. He added these as new issues of complaint and requested a statement of his previous account. He said he would “await a proper written response which should be sent by post to the address on [his] correspondence.”
11. TfL wrote to Mr X by post on 10 February 2021. It confirmed his account was obsolete and could not be recovered; it could not therefore provide a statement of the account as requested. It advised Mr X again to create a new account and referred him to us.

Assessment

12. TfL has confirmed Mr X’s road user charging account it is obsolete and it holds no details of the account so it is unlikely we could get to the bottom of whether it informed Mr X about the closure at the time. The issue also does not cause Mr X significant injustice; had TfL informed him the situation would be the same as it is now. TfL has confirmed Mr X can open a new account should he need or wish to do so and this is the same position he would have been in, had he received confirmation of the closure at the time.
13. Mr X remains unhappy with TfL’s handling of the matter but it was not fault to request further information to assist it in locating Mr X’s account. It is unfortunate Mr X was not able to respond to TfL’s email from 14 April 2020 but it is not unusual for authorities to operate email addresses which do not accept incoming messages. Mr X may have submitted the information in the same way he submitted his initial enquiry but he chose instead to write to TfL by post. The postal address shown on his letter does seem to be in use by TfL but unfortunately his letter shows as having been refused by a different company. It is therefore unlikely we could say TfL was at fault for this.
14. It is clear TfL received Mr X’s letter dated 29 December 2020 and that it did not provide a substantive response or update within 10 working days of receipt as it said it would. Its response is dated 9 February 2021, some five weeks after it received the letter and three weeks after its acknowledgement suggested he would receive a response. While this delay clearly caused Mr X some frustration this is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.
15. There appears to have been some confusion about Mr X’s subject access request but the information provided by Mr X shows he made a request to TfL and that TfL sent him a form about it. TfL’s responses explain it does not have any information relating to his former account and if Mr X wishes to challenge this he should make his formal request to TfL (if he has not done so already). Then, if he is unhappy with its response, he should refer the matter to the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner is better placed to decide whether TfL has responded to his request properly.
16. While Mr X is unhappy with the way TfL has dealt with his complaint it is not a good use of public resources to look at the authority’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by TfL causing Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman