Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that London Travelwatch failed to properly deal with his complaint against Transport for London. This is because London Travelwatch clearly explained the reasons it would not take his complaint further and its actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the way London Travelwatch (LTW) handled his complaint about public transport operated by Transport for London (TfL). He says its decision not to investigate the issue is unfair and does not meet his expectations.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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.
4. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Authority.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Background

7. Mr X reported an issue with a bus payment machine in late 2020 which resulted in him being charged twice for a bus journey. He was also unhappy with the conduct of the bus driver. Mr X complained to TfL about the matter and referred his complaint to London LTW and us.
8. LTW declined to investigate for several reasons including that it did not deal with complaints about bus drivers and because it could not achieve the outcome Mr X wanted, which was compensation of £80 from TfL. It explained TfL was looking into the issue and there was no benefit to investigating it further.
9. We declined to investigate because the injustice claimed was not significant and had been remedied. Mr X’s additional payment amounted to £1.50 and TfL had refunded this and applied a £10 credit applied to his account.
10. Mr X remained unhappy with the outcome and asked LTW to investigate further, but it declined. He now complains about delay by LTW in dealing with his complaint and says it did not follow its published procedures.

Back to top

My assessment

11. We are not looking at TfL’s actions as part of this complaint; these have been considered separately.
12. The issue in this case concerns LTW’s handling of Mr X’s complaint and we will not normally investigate such matters as standalone issues. This is because they does not, in most cases, cause significant injustice to the person complaining which is separate from the actions complained about.
13. While Mr X’s complaints concern different bodies within our jurisdiction I see no reason to deviate from our approach in this case. LTW explained its reasons for not taking Mr X’s complaint further and while Mr X disagrees with its decision it was one LTW was entitled to make.
14. Mr X has gone to some time and trouble to challenge the decision in an attempt to reopen the case but this was entirely his choice. He was aware neither we nor LTW intended to pursue the matter further and his actions were entirely disproportionate to the substantive issue, for which he has received a remedy, in any event.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because LTW’s actions have not caused Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman