Transport for London has provisionally awarded a major revenue-collection contract to Spain-based Indra, prompting political criticism and a legal challenge — with long-term implications for how Londoners pay to travel.
A contract most passengers will never see has become the latest flashpoint in London’s transport politics — and the outcome could influence how the capital pays, taps and travels for years.
Transport for London has provisionally awarded a contract worth up to £1.5 billion to Indra, a Spain-based technology company with defence links, to run and develop the system underpinning Oyster and contactless ticketing across London’s network. The award has triggered criticism at City Hall and beyond, partly because of the supplier’s association with the defence sector and partly because the process is being contested in court by Cubic, the company previously involved in running Oyster systems.
For passengers, the key point is this: this is not a minor IT refresh. TfL has been seeking a supplier to deliver the next generation of digital ticketing — the behind-the-scenes machinery that handles fare collection, enforcement, upgrades and future changes. Oyster is no longer the sole centre of gravity in London travel payments, but it remains vital for many journeys, concessions and travel habits, and any system upgrade affects reliability as well as what new features can be introduced.
The controversy has two main threads.
First, procurement and governance. Cubic — the long-time player in London ticketing — is challenging TfL’s decision, arguing it was treated unfairly in the tender process and claiming it offered a lower bid than Indra. TfL has disputed those claims. Legal action of this kind matters because it can delay final contract signing and create uncertainty over timelines, even when day-to-day services continue as normal.
Second, politics and optics. Critics have questioned why a contract connected to London’s public transport should go to a firm that also operates in defence — particularly amid wider debate in the city about arms-related events and policies. Supporters of the decision have argued the work sits within a civil transport business unit and that procurement is handled independently rather than by the Mayor’s office.
It’s easy for this kind of story to feel abstract — another procurement row, another London headline — but the stakes are practical. Revenue collection is one of TfL’s core functions: it touches fares policy, network funding and the customer experience. When ticketing works well, nobody thinks about it. When it fails, it can turn a routine commute into a queue, a penalty fare dispute, or a system-wide disruption.
What changes might passengers actually notice, if the contract proceeds as planned? TfL has been clear in recent years that modernising systems is essential to keep pace with digital payments and customer expectations. That can include upgrades that make it easier to manage accounts, deal with refunds, handle disrupted journeys, and introduce new fare products. Even seemingly small improvements — smoother gate performance, better integration across modes, fewer “touch in again” errors — depend on the underlying tech.
For now, nothing changes overnight. Oyster and contactless are not expected to suddenly behave differently because a contract has been provisionally awarded. But the legal challenge and political pressure raise a straightforward question: will this be resolved quickly enough to keep modernisation on track, or will it become another slow-moving saga in London’s infrastructure story?
Until the court process and procurement steps conclude, the most useful advice for Londoners is also the simplest: keep an eye on official TfL updates if they appear, and treat any rumours about immediate changes to Oyster or contactless with caution. This is a long game — one that matters precisely because it is boring, technical, and foundational.