Summary: Mr B complains about TfL’s handling of his claim for a fare refund. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because neither fault by TfL nor the injustice caused to Mr B is sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says TfL did not properly handle his claim for a fare refund following a delayed service. He says communication from TfL caused upset and outrage by questioning his honestly and integrity and that it should withdraw the offending letter, apologise and compensate him above the £20 already offered.

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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the authority, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B. I gave him the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B contacted TfL to claim a fare refund following a disrupted underground journey.
5. TfL responded by confirming the service had been severely delayed and sending him a link to enable him to make refund claim.
6. Mr B submitted his service delay refund application and received an automatically generated letter which said it could not refund him because it had been unable to verify the information he had given and it gave some examples of why this might have been the case. It advised Mr B to call its contact centre if he still thought he was entitled to a refund.
7. Mr B called and explained his situation and was advised the matter would be resolved immediately and a refund would be sent. However, this did not happen and Mr B complained. He said despite TfL having acknowledged his original letter and confirming that delays had occurred on the service, he had been written to by TfL questioning his honesty and integrity about what had happened and suggesting he had not tapped in or out with a paper ticket or had tried to claim twice.
8. In response TfL explained why, because of the process Mr B had gone through to claim a refund, and because he had not used a Contactless Payment Card (CPC) to buy his ticket, he had received the generic email sent to customers when TfL is unable to detect a journey on a CPC. It acknowledged there was no way Mr B could have known this and apologised that this had not been explained to him previously. It also apologised that the correct information had not been given to him and that he had not received the refund as had been promised.
9. TfL assured Mr B that appropriate measures had been taken to ensure this would not happen in the future and to recognise his experience, and to cover the refund due, it credited his bank account with £20.
10. Dissatisfied with the response, and that the inadequate £20 payment had been imposed on him and placed into his account without his agreement, Mr B complained to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

11. TfL has explained to Mr B that the email he thought questioned his honesty was a standard email and that it had not meant to question his honesty. While I understand Mr B has been upset by what took place, TfL has explained why he received the letter and why, as it was automatic, it cannot withdraw it. It has apologised and sought to resolve matters by paying him £20. This was a reasonable response from TfL and I do not consider there are any outstanding matters which warrant investigation by the Ombudsman.
12. Mr B feels his reputation has been besmirched by the standard letter addressed to him which set out examples of reasons why TfL could not verify the information he provided in his refund application. However, while I note Mr B is of the view that TfL’s fault and his injustice is sufficient to warrant an investigation, we are a publicly funded body and have an obligation to use the funds allocated to us in an effective, efficient and economic manner. This means we do not investigate every complaint we receive and in this case the complaint does not justify us launching a formal investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because neither fault by TfL nor the injustice caused to Mr B is sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman