Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that a rail replacement bus service operated on behalf of Transport for London damaged his car. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to make a claim against Transport for London at court if he believes it is responsible for the damage.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains he suffered damage to his car when it was hit by a replacement rail bus near a train station. He believes Transport for London (TfL) is responsible and wants it to pay him compensation. He has asked for information to prove his case and is unhappy with TfL’s response.

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)
4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. It is not for us to determine who is liable for the damage to Mr X’s car; this is a matter for the courts.
7. Mr X wrote to TfL claiming it is responsible but TfL has responded by explaining it does not operate any buses close to where the accident occurred. TfL has suggested Mr X contact other bus operators in the area but Mr X wants it to provide further information he believes will assist him in his claim.
8. If Mr X believes TfL holds further information which may be relevant to his claim he may make a ‘freedom of information’ request. If he is not happy with TfL’s response it would be reasonable for him to complain to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice Mr X claims relates to the damage to his vehicle and if he believes TfL is responsible for this it would be reasonable for him to make a claim against it at court. We will not investigate TfL’s handling of Mr X’s request for further information because it is a matter for the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman