Transport for London cases with longer response times than 10 days
Operator response delays
Not all cases that are open longer than usual are because the operator has not responded to the caseworker. Some cases take longer to deal with as they require further investigation and other cases can be kept open to allow ongoing negotiation between London TravelWatch and the operator. This is acceptable as long as the caseworker keeps the appellant updated on a regular basis.
Some cases where the transport operator has taken what could be considered too long to respond to London TravelWatch, have nevertheless been resolved to the passenger’s satisfaction. The caseworkers are aware that response delays from operators do not necessarily mean negative outcomes for passengers and keep this in mind when chasing the transport operator for a response.
The transport operator sometimes asks for further information that can delay the case being closed while the caseworker requests this from the passenger. Such cases can become lengthy; particularly if the passenger is away at the time the request is made.
Transport for London cases with longer response times than 10 days - quarter 2 2016/17
There are 17 cases that took longer than TfL’s 10 day response target and a representative example of these are detailed below.
TfL Congestion charge
Mr G had been issued with a penalty change notice (PCN)that was overturned by the London Tribunals but he couldn't get a response from TfL to say that no further action would be taken. On appeal TfL responded with an admission that there had been errors and delays in the handling of this case, offering their apologies and confirming no further action.
Ms G complained to DLR regarding a broken ticket machine at Elverson Road station, but after three months it had still not been fixed. She then contacted London TravelWatch and the case was appealed. After six weeks and still no response a chaser was sent. It turned out DLR had replied direct to Ms G within a week of London TravelWatch’s appealreferral. TfL said the DLR had been waiting for spare parts needed to fix the machine, and made an apology for any inconvenience caused. TfL forgot to advise London TravelWatch that they had incorrectly responded directly to Mr G.
TfL Oyster (zip card)
Ms X’s son’s Child Oystercard was blocked for alleged “breach of behaviour”. Ms X entered into lengthy correspondence with TfL but was unsatisfied about the way her complaint was being handled. London TravelWatch appealed against the blocking and this was upheld by TfL. Due to the sensitive nature of the case it was agreed with all concerned that TfL would respond directly to Ms X.
Due to a technical error, journeys paid for with an American Express card stopped appearing on Ms S’s TfL journey history. Ms S needed the journey history as evidence in order to be reimbursed by her employer. She raised the issue with TfL, but after four months it remained unresolved so she came to London TravelWatch. The case was appealed and TfL responded that engineers were still looking into the problem and offered to liaise with Ms S to find a short term resolution.
TfL Santander Cycles
Mr F disputed TfL’s claim that a £2 refund had already been paid. He also disputed the amount. He came to London TravelWatch who on appeal were advised by TfL that the refund had been made. Mr F was adamant that he had not received payment so the case was re-appealed requesting further evidence of payment from TfL. During this appeal TfL found that payment had not actually been made so the refund plus a good will gesture was offered.