Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a bus penalty fare as Miss X could have appealed against it.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the card reader failed to register her card when she tapped it on a bus journey. Miss X wants a refund of the payment she made to clear the penalty fare Transport for London (TfL) issued to her. Miss X feels it is unfair as she feels the process found her guilty until proven innocent and as a first-time offender, she should have been allowed to pay the fare and issued a warning instead of being threatened with prosecution.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating or if we decide it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council appeal (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. TfL issues penalty fare notices when journeys are made on its transport system but not paid for, under the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Penalty fare notices are issued in lieu of prosecution where an offender is considered not to have deliberately set out to avoid the fare.
6. I recognise that Miss X is unhappy at being subjected to this process and being threatened with prosecution, but TfL is empowered to take such action, and it doing so does not, of itself, indicate fault.
7. TfL operates an appeal process which Miss X could have used to challenge the penalty fare. Miss X says she did not appeal as she was concerned about the penalty increasing and also as she felt she did not have enough evidence to make a successful appeal.
8. Miss X would not have lost the right to pay the penalty at the discounted amount as after refusal of an appeal, early payment of the discounted amount is offered again. I note what Miss X says about her case, but I consider that had she wanted to challenge the penalty, the appropriate route would have been via TfL's appeal process.
9. For these reasons we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because she could have appealed against the penalty fare notice, and it is unlikely we will find fault by TfL in the issuing and enforcing of the penalty notice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman