Summary: Miss X complained Transport for London (TfL) failed to properly respond to repeated incidents where bus drivers did not safely assist her as a wheelchair user. There is fault in the Authority’s complaint handling. The Authority has agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about Transport for London (TfL)’s handling of her complaints about bus driver behaviour. She said drivers repeatedly failed to assist her safely as a wheelchair user, including driving off before she was secure and failing to deploy ramps. She also raised a serious incident in June 2025 involving unsafe and abusive behaviour.
2. Miss X said TfL’s responses were generic and did not address her ongoing concerns. She said this caused distress, anxiety about using buses, and affected both her and her children, who were present during some incidents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When we find fault, we can recommend remedies for significant personal injustice, or to prevent future injustice, caused by that fault. We look at organisational fault, not individual professional competence. Decisions about individual’s fitness to practise or work are for the organisations concerned, and for professional regulators, not the Ombudsman. (Local Government Act 1974, s26(1) and s26A(1) as amended).
5. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether TfL breached the Equality Act 2010. However, we can consider whether TfL properly considered its duties and whether there was fault in how it responded to Miss X’s complaints.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Authority as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Miss X and the Authority had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and guidance

10. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
11. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
12. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act include disability.

What happened

13. Miss X is a wheelchair user. The evidence showed she made a large number of complaints to TfL between July 2024 and December 2025 about similar issues. These included bus drivers not stopping, failing to deploy ramps, not prioritising wheelchair space, and driving off before she was safely secured.
14. Miss X reported a serious incident in June 2025 where a driver moved off before she was safely positioned in the wheelchair space while she was travelling with her children, including a baby. She said the driver ignored requests to stop and behaved aggressively. TfL acknowledged this incident and confirmed the driver’s behaviour fell below expected standards.
15. TfL referred the matter to the relevant bus operator, which carried out an investigation. TfL confirmed the operator took action against the driver in line with its disciplinary procedures but did not disclose the details due to data protection and employment confidentiality.
16. TfL provided Miss X with several responses between June and September 2025. It apologised for the incident and for the distress caused, acknowledged the seriousness of the matter, and confirmed the driver’s actions did not meet expected standards. It also explained that all drivers receive training, including on their obligations under the Equality Act 2010, and that a wider Equality, Diversity and Inclusion training programme was being rolled out.
17. Miss X continued to report similar incidents both before and after the June 2025 incident. TfL responded to each complaint, generally apologising, stating the matter would be investigated, and confirming that appropriate action had been taken.
18. However, Miss X remained dissatisfied with TfL’s responses. She said they were repetitive and did not properly address her concerns about the frequency of incidents or their impact on her and her family. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in September 2025.

Analysis and findings

Response to the June 2025 incident

19. TfL acknowledged that the driver’s behaviour in June 2025 fell below expected standards. It referred the matter to the bus operator, which investigated and took action in line with its disciplinary procedures. TfL apologised to Miss X and recognised the distress caused.
20. While TfL did not provide details of the disciplinary action taken, it explained this was due to data protection and employment confidentiality. This is a reasonable position.
21. There is no evidence TfL failed to investigate the incident or take appropriate action. Therefore, there is no fault in TfL’s handling of the individual incident.
22. However, there was some delay and inconsistency in its early responses. TfL later acknowledged this. This amounts to minor fault in communication.

Complaint handling and repeated incidents

23. The evidence shows Miss X made a significant number of complaints over an extended period about similar issues. These were not isolated incidents but formed a clear pattern.
24. TfL responded to each complaint and consistently apologised, confirmed investigations were carried out, and stated that action had been taken against drivers. However, its responses were largely standardised and repetitive. They did not meaningfully engage with Miss X’s concerns about the frequency of incidents or demonstrate that TfL considered the cumulative impact on her.
25. There is no evidence TfL considered whether the repeated complaints indicated a wider or systemic issue, escalated the matter as a recurring accessibility concern, or adapted its approach to reflect Miss X’s ongoing experience.
26. This meant Miss X was left feeling her concerns were not being taken seriously. Given the number and consistency of the incidents, TfL should have taken a more considered and coordinated approach. This amounts to fault in TfL’s complaint handling.

Action taken against drivers

27. TfL confirmed that, in each case, complaints were referred to the relevant operator and that action was taken in line with disciplinary procedures. It also confirmed that complaints are recorded on drivers’ employment records and that drivers are reminded of their obligations.
28. There is no evidence TfL failed to take action against drivers. Its decision not to disclose specific outcomes is appropriate.
29. However, despite the repeated nature of the complaints, there is no evidence TfL considered whether further or different action was required at a service level. This reinforces the finding that TfL did not adequately address the ongoing nature of Miss X’s concerns.

Consideration of Equality Act duties

30. TfL referred to its obligations under the Equality Act and the training provided to drivers. There is limited evidence beyond these general statements that it considered Miss X’s individual circumstances or whether its actions were effectively addressing the difficulties she continued to face.
31. While this does not amount to a finding that TfL breached the Equality Act, it supports the finding that TfL did not sufficiently consider its duties in practice when responding to Miss X’s repeated complaints.

Overall finding

32. TfL was not at fault in how it investigated individual incidents or in taking action against drivers.
33. However, there was fault in TfL’s complaint handling, as it failed to properly consider and respond to a clear pattern of repeated incidents affecting Miss X.

Injustice

34. Miss X experienced avoidable frustration, distress, and time and trouble pursuing her complaints.
35. The repeated nature of the incidents, combined with TfL’s largely standardised responses, contributed to a loss of confidence in using bus services and increased anxiety about travelling.
36. Miss X’s children were present during some incidents, including the June 2025 incident, and were exposed to distressing situations. TfL’s failure to adequately address the ongoing issues contributed to the continued impact on the family’s sense of safety when using public transport.
37. TfL’s failure to properly address the pattern of complaints added to that distress and represents avoidable injustice.
38. We are making separate enquiries to establish whether there may be a wider issue affecting other disabled passengers. These enquiries will consider the extent of similar complaints and how TfL monitors and responds to them. We will decide if there is a need to make wider service improvement recommendations when we receive the response to those enquiries.

Back to top

Action

39. Within one month of our final decision, TfL has agreed to:
• Apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused by the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay £200 to Miss X to recognise the avoidable distress, frustration and time and trouble caused by the faults in complaint handling.
40. TfL should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

41. I find fault causing injustice. TfL has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman