Summary: Mr X complains that Transport for London is unfairly considering prosecuting him for travelling without a valid ticket. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because if legal action starts then Mr X can defend himself in court. And the Ombudsman cannot investigate matters subject to legal action. If no legal action takes place, then Mr X will not have suffered injustice which warrants an investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that Transport for London (TfL) is considering legal proceedings against him for travelling without a valid ticket. He says it should have issued him with a penalty fare which he would have paid. He also says the ticket inspector was racist and abusive and that TfL are treating him differently because he is not from the UK.
2. He wants the Ombudsman to instruct TfL to withdraw its complaint against him and waive any penalty imposed on him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr X and discussed his complaint with him.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X says he purchased a discounted rail ticket using a student railcard.
6. He says while on the train he was asked to produce his ticket by an inspector. When the inspector checked the railcard he found it hadexpired. Mr X says he showed the inspector his student identification and his passport.
7. Mr X says after providing the information, the inspector was rude and insisted he leave the train. But she kept his ticket as evidence. He says her actions and attitude upset him and suggests she targeted him because of his dark skin tone.
8. Mr X received a letter from TfL saying it is considering taking legal action against him for travelling without a valid ticket. It asked him to provide further information which he did. He says he has not received any more information from TfL.

Assessment

9. It is clear from the information that Mr X purchased a discounted rail ticket using a student railcard, but the railcard was out of date. This means the train ticket he purchased was not valid.
10. I understand Mr X is worried about the possibility of legal proceedings. And that he considers the expired railcard was a mistake which TfL should consider. He also says TfL should have allowed him to pay a penalty fare instead of taking legal action.
11. However, TfL has not confirmed whether it is taking legal action. It has advised Mr X that it is considering the matter and asked for information which he has provided.
12. I do not propose to investigate this complaint. This is because if TfL decides to prosecute Mr X, he will be able to defend himself in court. And, the Ombudsman cannot consider matters which are subject to legal proceedings.
13. And if TfL decide not to prosecute Mr X, then he will not have suffered any personal injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not not investigate this complaint. This is because if TfL decides to prosecute him for travelling without a valid ticket, he will be able to defend himself in court. And we cannot consider matters which are subject to legal proceedings. And if TfL decides not to prosecute, then he will not have suffered enough injustice to warrant our involvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman