Public transport

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Surrey County Council (18 001 058)

    Statement Not upheld Public transport 05-Feb-2019

    Summary: Miss C complained that the Council wrongly refused her application for a concessionary bus pass. The Ombudsman found no fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

  • London Borough of Enfield (18 005 425)

    Statement Upheld Public transport 30-Jan-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint about its handling of his applications for a Disabled Persons' Freedom Pass for concessionary travel. The Council agreed to reimburse travel costs Mr B should not have had to pay and improve its procedures. We are satisfied with the action the Council has agreed to take, so there is no need for an investigation.

  • Reading Borough Council (18 011 927)

    Statement Not upheld Public transport 23-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr A and Mrs A complain that the Council should not operate a bus service along their road because it is dangerous. The Ombudsman does not find there is fault by the Council.

  • Transport for London (18 011 667)

    Statement Upheld Public transport 06-Dec-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a charge for an unpaid fare on a Transport for London (TfL) bus. This is because TfL has now refunded the charge. Consideration of Mr X's complaint by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to achieve anything more for him.

  • Transport for London (18 005 043)

    Statement Upheld Public transport 27-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mr B complains the authority wrongly began a prosecution when he had committed no offence. We find fault in the authority's actions preceding its prosecution, when it failed to identify Mr B had committed no offence. We consider this caused injustice to Mr B in the form of distress, inconvenience and time and trouble. The authority has agreed to apologise to Mr B, make a payment to reflect his injustice and consider a further payment if he provides evidence of any additional expenses incurred.

  • Transport for London (18 004 169)

    Statement Not upheld Public transport 23-Nov-2018

    Summary: Miss X complains about Transport for London's decision to cancel her apprentice Oyster card. Transport for London is not at fault. The Education and Skills Funding Agency did not send Transport for London the relevant information for it to verify Miss X's eligibility for the Oyster card. Transport for London considered its terms and conditions and is not at fault for cancelling Miss X's Oyster card.

  • Northamptonshire County Council (18 003 607)

    Statement Not upheld Public transport 01-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to properly consider the decision to remove bus subsidies which led to the service to her village stopping. There is no evidence of fault in the Council's consideration of the removal of the bus subsidy.

  • Transport for London (17 019 054)

    Statement Upheld Public transport 06-Aug-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by Transport for London on the complaint sent by Ms E's advisor about its failure to investigate incidents about staff behaviour she reported. It failed to ensure her first complaint was investigated and nor did it provide evidence of investigating another. There was lack of clarity about whether reports were for investigation by TFL or another operator. It agreed to send her an apology, pay her £125, and make procedural changes to prevent any future recurrence of the fault found.

  • Telford & Wrekin Council (17 013 359)

    Statement Not upheld Public transport 30-May-2018

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not prevented buses using a dangerous route. The Council is not at fault. A Commercial Company runs the bus route and the Council has no grounds to prevent it using the route.

  • West Sussex County Council (17 011 215)

    Statement Not upheld Public transport 16-May-2018

    Summary: Mrs D complains about the Council's decision to remove bus stops near her home in 2017. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault by the Council. He has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.