Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a bus driver’s failure to stop. This is because the issue did not cause Ms X significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains a bus operated on behalf of Transport for London (TfL) failed to stop when requested on two occasions in a five-month period between March and August 2024. Ms X is 80 years old and has mobility issues and says the bus driver’s actions were discriminatory and hurt her feelings. She also complains about the handling of her complaints by the bus operator and TfL and about their failure to release CCTV footage of the bus at the time of the incident.

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 do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
7. I appreciate the bus driver’s failure to stop when requested hurt Ms X’s feelings and caused her inconvenience but this is not a significant enough injustice to warrant further investigation.
8. There is also insufficient injustice caused by the failure to provide her with CCTV footage from the bus as Ms X wanted this because she felt it would support her complaint, which we have decided not to take further. If Ms X still wishes to obtain a copy of the CCTV footage, should it still exist, she should refer the matter to the Information Commissioner in accordance with Paragraph 3 above.
9. Ms X is also unhappy about the way TfL dealt with her complaint but it is not a good use of public resources to look at the TfL’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.
10. Although we have decided not to investigate this complaint Ms X may raise the matter with London Travelwatch, which is an independent appeals body for unresolved complaints about many transport services provided in and around London. London Travelwatch’s thresholds for investigating are different from our own and it will decide whether to investigate on the facts of the case.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the matters complained about did not cause Ms X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman