Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X not being allowed to board a bus. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about an incident during which he was not allowed to board a bus. He said the Authority incorrectly said he had used the wrong Oyster card, and he suspected the incident was racially-motivated. Mr X said the Authority then failed to investigate the matter properly due to an administrative error.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him distress and inconvenience. He wanted explanations and service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Authority after an incident where he says he was not allowed to board a bus. He says his Oyster card should have been accepted, and the driver was wrong to deny him travel. He told the Council passengers of a different ethnicity had been treated differently on other occasions.
7. The Authority responded to Mr X’s complaint. It apologised for the upset the incident caused Mr X. It explained it would remind its staff to check tickets carefully, and to handle situations politely and appropriately. It also emphasised it would not tolerate discriminatory behaviour.
8. The Authority explained however that due to an administrative error, it had not retained the CCTV footage from the original incident. It acknowledged the disappointment this caused Mr X.
9. We could not add to the investigation the Authority has already undertaken. We cannot come to sound conclusions about the original incident. In any event, the Authority has not denied the incident occurred.
10. We could not achieve a different outcome if we investigated the matter now. The Authority has apologised and explained what it would do to remind staff of its expectations. Given the complaint is about a one-off incident, for which there is not substantive evidence, it is likely we would say the actions the Authority has taken are sufficient.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because doing so would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman