The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that London Travelwatch failed to properly deal with his complaints about another body, and about its handling of his case. This is because London Travelwatch’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice and investigation would not achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains London Travelwatch failed to refer his case to its Board to consider as he believes it should have. He is also unhappy with its handling of his complaint about its actions.
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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X’s original complaint to London Travelwatch concerned the actions of Transport for London (TfL) in relation to the introduction of annual address check fee for its 60+ oyster card. This complaint concerns London Travelwatch’s handling of his concerns about TfL. Both organisations are within our jurisdiction to investigate, however I will focus on the actions of London Travelwatch as that is the body Mr X has asked us to investigate.
Mr X first contacted London Travelwatch to raise his concerns about TfL on 30 October 2023. He believed it was unfair that TfL had introduced the annual fee only for people who registered for a 60+ oyster card after August 2019, so that those who already held a 60+ oyster card did not have to pay the fee. He said there was no evidence to show TfL had made a valid decision to introduce the fee or to decide not to require existing cardholders to pay it. He wanted to know if the charge was validly introduced, whether TfL’s policy was discriminatory and whether he was entitled to a refund of the annual fee(s) he had paid.
London Travelwatch responded to Mr X’s complaint on 6 November 2023 explaining it was unable to help Mr X. It explained TfL had introduced the annual fee to ensure cardholders remained eligible for the 60+ oyster card for the entire period it was valid for (five years) as it had found some cardholders were moving outside London and still using the card when they came back. It also explained that it would be difficult to challenge the fee as it formed part of the terms and conditions which applied at the time Mr X purchased the card.
Mr X was not happy with London Travelwatch’s response so he complained. He received a response from a senior officer, in accordance with London Travelwatch's complaints process, but he remained unhappy so he sought to escalate the matter further to the Chief Executive. He later found out that the Chief Executive had drafted the initial complaint response sent by the senior officer and asked for contact details for the Chair of the Board, but the Chief Executive declined to provide them. He therefore contacted the London Assembly for an email address and made a further complaint to the Chair. He complained the Board should have considered his original complaint about TfL and about the actions and conduct of the senior officer and the Chief Executive. The Chair of the Board responded to Mr X but explained she supported the decision not to refer the original complaint to the Board and was satisfied with the way the senior officer and the Chief Executive had dealt with his complaint.
Mr X believes London Travelwatch had a legal requirement to refer his original complaint to the Board and that it did not therefore deal with it properly. He wants London Travelwatch to consider the complaint at Board-level, apologise to him and pay him compensation.
While I appreciate Mr X is unhappy with TfL’s decision London Travelwatch does not have the power to overturn it. It can negotiate with transport operators such as TfL but it has no formal powers to alter its policies or revoke its decisions. Any investigation into London Travelwatch’s handling of Mr X’s complaint cannot therefore achieve Mr X’s ultimate aim of removing TfL’s annual fee and is unlikely to achieve any worthwhile outcome. I also do not consider London Travelwatch’s actions caused Mr X significant injustice for which we would recommend a remedy.
London Travelwatch’s initial response in November 2023 suggested Mr X may wish to complain to us about TfL’s annual fee but he did not do so. The senior officer’s email then explained that he could escalate his complaint about London Travelwatch to us if he wished.
London Travelwatch’s complaints procedure does not allow for further escalation following a response from the Chief Executive so although Mr X spent time and effort obtaining details for the Chair of the Board, this was outside the process and entirely unnecessary; the Chair could simply have declined to respond but in the event decided to address Mr X’s concerns despite there being no requirement to do so. It was Mr X’s choice to take these steps instead of complaining to us and we would not therefore recommend a remedy for the time and effort he spent doing so.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because London Travelwatch’s handling of Mr X’s case- his original complaint about TfL and his complaint about its actions- did not cause Mr X significant avoidable injustice. We also cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X as London Travelwatch does not have the power to overturn TfL’s decision.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman