Transport for London (25 012 753)
Category : Transport and highways > Street furniture and lighting
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 24 Mar 2026
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the language used to describe TfL’s e-scooter scheme. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with TfL’s actions. Further, Mr X has not sustained a personal injustice due to this matter.
The complaint
- Mr X complained the language used to describe TfL’s e-scooter scheme is incorrect and misleading.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Mr X and TfL.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Mr X complained language used to describe TfL’s e-scooters scheme is misleading as it is not as environmentally friendly as it has been promoted to be.
- TfL explained that it used the language based on recent trials which show the scheme has encouraged users not to drive.
- Mr X remains unhappy with TfL’s response and wants us to find it at fault. The evidence shows TfL has included reports and trials which support the language it has used. There is no evidence of fault in the way the TfL has handled this matter. There is also no evidence Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice due to this.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with TfL’s actions and Mr X has not sustained a personal injustice due to this matter.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman