Decision by public transport operator not to reimburse charges incurred due to unavailability of public transport services

Complainant unable to board public transport service within 30-minute transfer period incurs extra charges—operator declines to provide a refund citing its policy—complainant alleges an obligation to provide services to all destinations within 30 minutes or refund passengers if it is unable to do so—Chief Ombudsman concludes the operator’s refund policy is not unreasonable.

Outcome

1. Overall, it was clear that AT had given extensive consideration to the length of the transfer period when it enacted its new integrated fares policy and that, in limiting the transfer period to 30 minutes, it was attempting to strike a balance between encouraging and improving the use of public transport in the region, and maintaining its revenue targets in order to comply with NZTA’s national farebox recovery policy.
2. In these circumstances the Ombudsman concluded that AT’s decision to implement a policy of not generally reimbursing passengers who could not board a connecting service within 30 minutes due to a lack of availability was not unreasonable.
3. The Ombudsman also considered that, in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, AT was not under an obligation to reimburse the complainant for his specific charges, and the decision not to reimburse the complainant for the second connection when he stopped for dinner was not unreasonable.
4. The Ombudsman also found that the decision to limit the transfer period to 30 minutes did not impose an obligation on AT to provide connecting services to all destinations within that timeframe. Such an obligation would require AT to ensure that connections to and from all destinations were available, within 30 minutes, at all hours of the day and on all days of the year. In the Ombudsman’s view, it was difficult to see how any public transport operator could fulfil this obligation whilst also complying with NZTA’s farebox recovery targets.

This case note is published under the authority of the Ombudsmen Rules 1989. It sets out an Ombudsman’s view on the facts of a particular case. It should not be taken as establishing any legal precedent that would bind an Ombudsman in future.