Summary: Mr X complained Transport for London (TfL) refused to issue a refund for his cycle hire. NHS staff were offered a discount code to use bikes for free during Covid, but Mr X was charged £2 per use when he had originally sought to purchase annual membership. We find fault with TfL for the delay in responding to Mr X. TfL will apologise to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X joined the cycle hire scheme as there was an offer for NHS staff to use the bikes for free. When he joined he wanted to pay the £90 annual fee but the app took £2 per hire which he did not realise until nine months later.
2. Mr X complained to TfL but it gave no refund under the TfL refund policy.
3. Mr X would like to know the total charges he has paid, and have a refund for all or part of them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
7. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. As part of the investigation, I considered:
• Information provided by Mr X and TfL;
• Information from the TfL web site; and
• Santander Cycles Scheme Refund Policy.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

10. TfL ran an offer for free cycle hire to NHS staff during Covid, rather than having to pay the £2 daily charge.
11. Mr X joined the scheme in good faith, entering his NHS details and the code to get the free hire.
12. Mr X says his account was set up incorrectly and he was charged a daily fee of £2 which he did not realise until nine months later. He had intended to buy the annual subscription in September 2020.
13. Mr X complained to TfL in June 2021. He wanted to know how his total charges, and get a refund. He says his subscription was changed during a telephone conversation with TfL.
14. TfL told Mr X by email on 14 June 2021 there was no annual membership on his online account and he had been purchasing 24 hour memberships. It gave a number to call for assistance in purchasing an annual membership.
15. Mr X requested a list of his charges on 7 June 2021 by telephone, and 27 June and 2 July 2021 by email.
16. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman as he is still awaiting a list of his charges from TfL. He also said they should honour the spirit of the NHS offer.

Response to my enquiries

17. TfL sent me a copy of the refund policy. It states the following:
• “3.1.5 a refund will not be due for daily bike access periods that have been used;
• 3.1.17 a refund will not be made if not requested within 120 days of the charge being made.”
18. The call logs note three calls. The first one is the complaint from Mr X on 7 June 2021, saying “he has just realised he has been getting charged £2 since September last year when his discount ran out. He selected yearly membership and paid £90 for the year. He is enquiring about what he has been charged since September 2020 to now and a possible refund.”
19. In the last call dated 6 September 2021 Mr X says he never intended to pay the daily fee, he only ever wanted the annual subscription which the app did not let him buy.
20. The charge list provided shows the annual subscription was successfully purchased on 7 September 2021, the day after his phone call.

Analysis

21. The NHS free cycle hire scheme was offered on the basis they redeem a promotional code every time a bike is hired. TfL have said in their response that Mr X had used the free 24-hour memberships previously in early 2020, but then stopped.
22. As Mr X had opted for “auto renew” in his app, this meant any purchase would default to the first membership bought. In this case, it was the 24 hour membership.
23. It would seem that Mr X had wanted to pay the annual subscription, but the “auto-renew” only gave him the option to buy 24 hour access. This was the option Mr X had chosen so no fault with TfL.
24. Unfortunately Mr X did not notice the charge for nine months. TfL are not at fault for not giving him a refund as it followed its policy.
25. I can appreciate Mr X’s view that TfL should honour the “spirit” of the offer, and he did not realise that his app was set to “auto-renew”. However, if he had brought these concerns to TfL earlier, they could have helped correct them. I do not consider there is evidence for me to find fault with TfL.
26. Mr X asked for a list of his charges in June 2021 and TfL have only now provided this information with the response to our enquiries. This delay has caused Mr X much frustration. TfL have agreed this was an error and have suggested they write an apology to Mr X for the delay. This is a suitable way to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Recommended action

27. TfL have agreed to write to Mr X apologising for the delay in response, within two weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

28. TfL are at fault for the delay in response to Mr X, causing frustration.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman