The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the cancellation of tube train services. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall call Mr B, says the train he usually catches to work was cancelled without warning on 2 consecutive days in December. He says he spent £19.56 on a taxi. He also had to wait a quarter of an hour with other passengers in the cold with no station staff available to advise. Transport for London (TfL) failed to give him information about how long his usual train would be cancelled for or an amended timetable.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because TfL has considered and responded appropriately to his concerns. It has also refunded the taxi fare. Investigation would add nothing significant to what we know. TfL has explained the reasons for short notice cancellation of trains. And confirmed the timetable had not been changed. We could not ensure the trains run on time. While the cancellations were inconvenient, we do not consider this caused Mr B significant personal injustice which warrants our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman