Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s siting of a bus stop opposite his home. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council siting a bus stop opposite his home shortly after he purchased the property. He says that the stop causes noise and vibration from traffic and increases pollution. He also complains that bus passengers and people waiting at the stop can see into his home causing loss of privacy. He wants the Council to re-locate the bus stop.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Mr X has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X says that a bus stop was erected across the road opposite his home shortly after he purchased the property. He was unaware of this from the searches and that it has caused noise, pollution and intrusion which he had not expected. He complained to the Council which advised him that the planning process considered the siting of the bus stops in 2015.
6. Mr X says he was not consulted about the bus stop. The Council says it consulted through site notices and letters in 2015, 2017 and 2019. It received no objections to the proposals, although Mr X did not live there for most of that period. It told him that pollution at the stop was no different to what it would be had it been sited elsewhere along the road. The intrusion on privacy from bus stops and buses is no greater than it would be from passing traffic or pedestrians and it cannot take action over this.
7. Mr X says the Council should investigate the noise and vibration of the buses as a statutory nuisance. The Environmental protection Act 1990 specifically excludes traffic noise and vibration from nuisance investigations.
8. The Council is the highway authority and it is responsible for deciding on where public infrastructure should be located as one of the statutory consultees in planning matters. The Council says the site is where it intended the stop to be in 2015 and that there were no objections against this.
9. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. in this case the Council did carry out prior consultation and although Mr X could not participate before he bought his home, this was not fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman