Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about London Travelwatch’s handling of Miss X’s complaint about a rail provider. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation and London Travelwatch’s actions have not caused Miss X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X bought tickets from a rail provider and says they did not explain the fees for cancellation. She had to cancel her journey due to unforeseen circumstances and tried to get a full refund from the rail provider, but the rail provider told her any refund was subject to cancellation fees which totalled £100. She referred her complaint to London Travelwatch but complains about London Travelwatch’s handling of her complaint. She says it told her she would get a full refund, but this did not happen. She wants London Travelwatch to give her a full refund for her train tickets.

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 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as rail providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. London Travelwatch is an independent statutory transport watchdog for London. It deals with complaints about transport operators including the rail provider referred to at Paragraph 1.
7. While the rail provider is within London Travelwatch’s jurisdiction it is not a body within our jurisdiction. We cannot therefore investigate any complaint about its decision not to refund Miss X. We can however consider the way London Travelwatch dealt with Miss X’s complaint about the rail provider, as London Travelwatch is a body within our jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Local Government Act 1974.
8. Miss X complained to London Travelwatch about the rail provider’s decision not to refund the cancellation fees and says London Travelwatch told her she would receive a full refund. London Travelwatch disputes Miss X’s claim and although the rail provider has maintained its decision not to issue a full refund it says it achieved an improved outcome for Miss X.
9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint against London Travelwatch. There is no evidence to show London Travelwatch told Miss X she would receive a full refund and the injustice she claims stems from the actions of the rail provider rather than London Travelwatch in any event.
10. London Travelwatch has no formal powers to force the rail provider to issue a full refund and the information sheet it sent to Miss X adequately explains this point. London Travelwatch did not benefit financially from Miss X’s purchase of the train tickets and we could not therefore reasonably recommend it reimburses Miss X simply because the rail provider has refused to refund her.
11. If Miss X still believes she is entitled to a full refund she may be able to complain to the Rail Ombudsman about the rail provider’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by London Travelwatch and the injustice Miss X claims is not the result of its actions but those of the rail provider, over which we have no jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman