The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the problems Mr X has experienced attempting to cross the ticket barriers at his local station. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained staff at the local station are intentionally preventing him from crossing the ticket barriers.
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 the Authority.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to TfL that staff at the local station were preventing him from crossing the ticket barriers using remote technology. He said when he approached them, they would then allow him to cross.
TfL advised Mr X that it was not possible for staff to remotely prevent people from crossing the barriers, but it would inform staff at the station to continue helping customers as needed.
Mr X wants us to find TfL at fault. There is no evidence of staff behaving in the manner he has suggested. There is also no evidence that Mr X has sustained a significant injustice due to this matter. An investigation would therefore be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman