Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about public transport because the courts and insurers are better placed to consider the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complained following an accident in which she says she was hurt when train doors closed upon her on the Authority’s underground train network. She is also unhappy with the way the Authority dealt with her complaint.
2. Mrs Y says she suffered painful bruising from the incident and feels her complaint was wrongly dismissed after CCTV was deleted before her complaint was responded to.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mrs Y and the Authority provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs Y says she has suffered injuries as a result of the train doors closing onto her. She has told us she is seeking compensation for her experience and suffering in the incident.
7. The legislation from which the Ombudsman takes their power also places some restrictions on what we may investigate. One of these personal injury claims, which we cannot investigate. We cannot determine liability claims for negligence or personal injury. These are legal claims which may only be determined by insurers or the courts.
8. We are not able to decide liability or award damages. Consequently, any claim for injury to Mrs Y caused by the Authority’s actions, in this case the closing of train doors, which Mrs Y considers the Authority to be responsible for, are matters more appropriately dealt with by the courts. It is therefore reasonable for Mrs Y to pursue her claim through by making a claim against the Authority’s insurance or through the courts. We will not investigate this complaint.
9. As we cannot investigate the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public funds for us to consider how the Authority dealt with the complaint. We will not investigate this.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because the courts and insurers are better placed to consider the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman