Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Transport for London (17 018 279)

Category : Transport and highways > Public transport

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 29 Mar 2018

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a £50 refund that was given to the complainant in error and about general delay. This is because the complainant does not have to repay the £50 and there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains that the Authority gave him a £50 refund in error. Mr X also complains of delay. Mr X wants an apology and £400 compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I read the complaint and the Authority’s responses. I considered Mr X’s previous complaint to the Ombudsman and comments he made in response to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr X complained about the Authority’s response after he reported an incident with a member of staff. In particular he complained of delay. The Authority had awarded £150 in compensation. The Authority agreed to our recommendation to pay another £150 to Mr X. Mr X received £300 compensation.

What happened – current complaint

  1. Mr X asked for a refund on his travelcard. Mr X estimated he was owed £47. The Authority gave Mr X a £50 refund. Mr X later found out that the refund had been made in error and he was not entitled to it. Mr X says the Authority lied to him about this issue and delayed responding to prevent him complaining to the Ombudsman.
  2. I have checked with the Authority and established that Mr X does not to repay the £50. The Authority apologised to Mr X for the error.
  3. Mr X has also complained about delays in relation to the incident with the member of staff. He also complains the Authority does not always respond within the advertised timescales.

Assessment

  1. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. This is because Mr X received £50 in error which he does not have to repay. He has also received an apology from the Authority. Mr X has benefited from the Authority’s error and there is no reason to start an investigation.
  2. Mr X complains of delayed responses by the Authority. Some of the replies may have been outside the advertised timescales but this does not represent an injustice which requires an investigation by the Ombudsman. In addition, some of Mr X’s comments relate to his previous complaint to the Ombudsman which has already been closed and for which he has already received additional compensation.
  3. Mr X has expressed dissatisfaction with many aspects of his communications with the Authority. However, I have not seen anything which requires another investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page