Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Transport for London’s use of double-decker buses for services which travel along his road. This is because we could not hold Transport for London responsible for the injustice Mr X claims and any agreement to remove double-decker buses from use on the road would not resolve the issue for Mr X in any event. If Mr X believes Transport for London is responsible for damage to his property it would be reasonable for him to make a claim to its insurers and take the matter to court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains Transport for London (TfL) is using double-decker buses to provide services along his road despite the buses being unsuitable for current road conditions. He says this is causing damage to his property and those of his neighbours. He would like TfL to use single-decker buses on his road.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. There is no suggestion Mr X’s road is restricted to allow use only by smaller vehicles or that TfL/its service provider are ignoring any restrictions in running the bus service on Mr X’s road.
6. We cannot therefore say TfL must change the type of bus it uses and even if it did this would not provide a remedy for the injustice Mr X claims. This is because single-decker buses and other large vehicles could still use the road resulting in further deterioration of the surface and damage to nearby properties.
7. TfL is not the local highway authority and it is not responsible for highway maintenance or vehicle restrictions. If Mr X believes the road is unsuitable for larger vehicles he should raise the matter with the relevant authority. If he considers the road is out of repair he may serve notice on the authority and take the matter to court. If Mr X considers the authority or TfL responsible for the damage to his property it would be reasonable for him to make a claim to their insurers. Liability for damage is ultimately a matter for the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we could not hold TfL responsible for the injustice Mr X claims.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman