It does not take much to raise the hackles of a London-bound commuter. When he or she is a passenger on First Great Western (FGW), the company responsible for running some of the least punctual and most overcrowded routes in the British Isles, sympathy tends to evaporate into ire faster than you can say Pirates of Penzance. Last month it was revealed that one third of First Great Western passengers on one of its services from Bedwyn, Wiltshire, to London Paddington had to stand for the entire length of their journey. It is not for nothing that this company has earned itself a nickname – Worst Great Western – that will hang like a millstone around its neck for years to come.

The disclosure that First Great Western contemplated a libel action against a consumer watchdog over a letter to Tom Harris, the UnderSecretary of State for Transport, will only compound the damage it has done to its own reputation. London TravelWatch, which told Mr Harris its board had passed a resolution calling for FGW’s franchise to be terminated, is not a fanatical ginger group. It monitors consumer interests under the auspices of the London Assembly. In advising the minister of its position it was doing precisely what it is supposed to do, and what too few consumer champions do effectively.

To suggest that correspondence between the watchdog and the minister was private and should not have been circulated, via media channels, to a broader audience, is to split hairs. Commercial sensitivities are to be respected, and First Group, FGW’s parent company, is within it rights to argue. But in the absence of gross negligence in the reporting of fact, or wilful misinterpretation of the truth, it had no business even to threaten legal action. London TravelWatch is a public institution, answerable to an entity led by democratically elected politicians, passing comment on the quality of a public service. First Group may be privately owned, and may no longer rely on the public purse for funding. But it is still running a public utility.

The pertinent questions this affair raises are less about whether the letter should have been kept private than about whether enough is being done to answer the criticisms it contained. If they are justified – as it seems they are – the company should be concentrating its efforts on righting wrongs. FGW should welcome scrutiny. Its shareholders, if they have any sense, will certainly encourage First Group to embrace openness in this case. They will own shares in a better company just as passengers will get a better service. For FGW to have spent precious time and resources attempting to stifle legitimate complaint was not just a legal dead end but bad business.

Mercifully, First Great Western, represented by Slaughter & May, has had second thoughts and withdrawn its threat. Whether this was the result of sage legal advice or because First Group itself realised that it would appear ridiculous to pursue through the courts a watchdog representing its own passengers, is unclear. But the rethink does little to remove the suspicion that the company has peculiar priorities.

This peculiarity may be explained in part by First Group’s status as a bidder for the East Coast rail franchise. It is not only for hardened cynics to wonder if the company sanctioned a misguided attempt to gag London TravelWatch because it feared that bad publicity would harm its ambitions to capture the lucrative routes between London and Aberdeen.