Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way Transport for London responded to a complaint about an advert on the underground. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by Transport for London and because the complainant could complain to the Advertising Standards Authority.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the way Transport for London (TFL) responded to his complaint about an advert on the underground.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and TFL. This includes the complaint correspondence and information about the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). I also considered TFL’s advertising policy and our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X complained to TFL about an advert he saw on the underground. He said he was very offended by the advert. He said TFL should stop engaging in political activities. Mr X wanted TFL to remove the advert. The advert promoted vegan milk.
5. TFL said it checks that every advert meets its advertising policy. It said the advert is compliant and Mr X could contact the ASA. It explained the ASA can investigate whether an advert is misleading, harmful, offensive or irresponsible.
6. TFL acknowledged a further complaint from Mr X but said it had nothing further to add.
7. I will not start an investigation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by TFL.
8. TFL responded correctly by explaining its approach to adverts and confirming the advert is compliant with its policy. It was appropriate for TFL to signpost Mr X to the ASA.
9. Mr X is unhappy TFL did not respond to his complaint about the response. But, TFL responded to the issues Mr X raised and there is nothing in the response to indicate we need to start an investigation.
10. I also will not investigate this complaint because Mr X can contact the ASA. It is reasonable for Mr X to do this because the ASA is the correct organisation to consider reports about adverts.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by TFL and because Mr X can report his concerns to the ASA.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman