Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about London TravelWatch’s handling of his dispute about a railway penalty fare. The matter has not caused Mr X injustice and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains London TravelWatch failed to properly consider his complaint about the amount of a penalty fare for travelling on a train without a valid ticket.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the final response issued by London TravelWatch. I shared my draft decision with him and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X boarded a train believing he could buy an extension to his travelcard which would allow him to travel on the train, on-board. This was incorrect and the train operator issued him a fine. The Regulations say a penalty fare should be either £30 or twice the full single fare applicable, whichever is greater.
5. Mr X complains about the amount of the fine. This was £30.20, which is twice the 'anytime’ fare cost rather than £23.80 which is twice the fare applicable at the time, as the journey took place on a Sunday. He appealed to the operator’s appeal body but his appeal was dismissed.
6. London Travelwatch, also known as the London Transport Users Committee, is sponsored and funded by the London Assembly which itself is part of the Greater London Authority; it is a body within the jurisdiction of the Local Government Ombudsman for the purposes of this complaint. We do not have jurisdiction over private train operators.
7. London Travelwatch is a watchdog for transport users in and around London and deals with complaints about the actions of transport operators in the City. Therefore when Mr X wished to escalate his complaint about the train operator the complaint was passed to London Travelwatch to consider.
8. Mr X complains London Travelwatch has failed to properly understand and follow the Regulations and believes its staff need further training on their application. London TravelWatch has explained to Mr X that it cannot change the appeal decision and believes the Regulations are unclear.
9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. London TravelWatch has clearly explained to Mr X that it cannot change the outcome of his appeal and we could not therefore achieve anything for Mr X by investigating his complaint further. The amount of his claimed injustice, which amounts to a difference of £6.40, is also not significant enough to warrant our further involvement in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the matter has not caused Mr X significant injustice and we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman