Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Public transport

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Transport for London (21 013 023)

    Statement Upheld Public transport 27-Mar-2022

    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.

  • Devon County Council (21 008 218)

    Statement Not upheld Public transport 11-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr B complained that the Council refused his application for a disabled person's bus pass despite him suffering from profound hearing loss. We found no fault on the Council's part.

  • Warrington Council (19 012 478)

    Statement Upheld Public transport 16-Apr-2021

    Summary: the Council failed to apply its bus prioritisation matrix when removing a subsidy for a local bus service but that likely did not affect the decision to remove the subsidy as the Council provided an enhanced service elsewhere. Failure to follow the process caused frustration for Ms C and led to her going to time and trouble to pursue the complaint. An apology, payment to Ms C and agreement to send a memo to officers dealing with reviewing bus services is satisfactory remedy.

  • Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (20 004 577)

    Statement Upheld Public transport 14-Jan-2021

    Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for not updating expired bus timetables in a timely manner, causing out of date information to be advertised. However, the Ombudsman does not find fault with the delay the Council experienced in implementing updates due to COVID 19. The Council has agreed to complete the updates within twelve weeks and make a payment to Mr X for the time spent pursuing the matter.

  • Transport for London (19 020 587)

    Statement Upheld Public transport 08-Sep-2020

    Summary: This Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation into Ms C's complaint, about TfL's refusal to refund charges relating to cycles she hired under its Santander Cycle Scheme. This is because TfL have now refunded the charges.

  • Transport for London (19 017 683)

    Statement Upheld Public transport 12-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that Transport for London overcharged her for a train journey. Transport for London has refunded Mrs X and any remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant our continued involvement in the case.

  • Transport for London (19 007 397)

    Statement Upheld Public transport 27-Jan-2020

    Summary: Transport for London was at fault, as buses belonging to a contracted firm were wrongly parking outside the complainant's house. TfL also directed the complainant to the wrong body to escalate her complaint. However, there is no evidence of significant injustice, and for this reason the Ombudsman has completed his investigation.

  • London Borough of Harrow (19 011 783)

    Statement Upheld Public transport 24-Jan-2020

    Summary: The Council was at fault for sending a review letter to Ms B's previous address, then cancelling her free travel pass when she did not respond to the letter. It has already accepted fault, and has reinstated the pass and apologised. It has also agreed to fully reimburse her for the unnecessary travel costs she incurred, and to make a payment to recognise the time she spent pursuing the matter.

  • Transport for London (18 017 172)

    Statement Upheld Public transport 06-Aug-2019

    Summary: Transport for London was at fault in wrongly telling Mr X he had no unpaid fares and so it would allow him to use his contactless card for travel. This error was not the substantive cause of the injustice experienced by Mr X, which included him receiving a penalty fare and missing an exam.

  • London Borough of Croydon (18 017 003)

    Statement Not upheld Public transport 28-Jun-2019

    Summary: The Council correctly assessed D's application for a freedom pass (concessionary travel card).