Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened when Mr X travelled on public transport between 2010 and 2012. The complaint is late and Mr X could have complained sooner. Also, there is not enough evidence of fault and we could not now carry out a meaningful investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained that between 2010 and 2012, use of his Oyster Card on the TfL rail network triggered a security warning over the Public Announcement (PA) system.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a body in our jurisdiction has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. We will not start an investigation into Mr X’s complaint.
8. We normally expect people to complain to us within twelve months of them becoming aware of a problem. We look at each complaint individually, and on its merits, considering the circumstances of each case. But we do not exercise discretion to accept a late complaint unless there are good reasons to do so. Mr X’s complaint is about events from over ten years ago. It is therefore late. Mr X says he did not raise the issue at the time because of its sensitivity and links to security. But I see no reason Mr X left it so long to complain. I see no reason Mr X could not have complained much earlier and so the exception at paragraph 3 applies to his complaint.
9. But even if Mr X’s complaint was not late, we would not investigate. Mr X has sent videos which show security announcements after he entered various stations. TfL says one of these is a Network Rail station, so not operated by TfL. TfL also says its Oyster Card and PA systems are not linked. The videos do not show a direct link between Mr X entering the station and the announcements. We could never prove there was such a link and too much time has passed for a meaningful investigation.
10. Mr X describes what happened as harassment. That is a matter for the Police, not the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is late, there is no evidence of fault, and we could not now carry out a meaningful investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman