Summary: Transport for London has failed to take adequate action to prevent buses idling at the bus stop outside Mr X’s home and gave him incorrect and misleading information. In recognition of the injustice caused, Transport for London has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to him. It has also agreed to consider putting up signs at the bus stop to remind drivers to switch their engines off.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that Transport for London (TfL) has failed to take action to prevent buses idling for lengthy periods at the bus stop outside his home. He says this happens at all hours of the day and night causing noise and vibration. Mr X and his disabled mother regularly suffer from lack of sleep as a result. This is affecting their mental and physical health and Mr X has been put to time and trouble in repeatedly reporting the issues to both TfL and the bus company to no avail.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information provided by Mr X, made enquiries of TfL and considered its comments.
5. Mr X and TfL had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

6. Mr X lives next to a bus stop. The buses run all day and night. Mr X says drivers often leave the buses idling for several minutes at a time causing noise and vibration. He says he and his disabled mother are suffering from loss of sleep which is affecting their physical and mental health. He says he has complained numerous times but to no avail.
7. TfL says, having received a complaint from Mr X on 1 March 2022, it contacted the company which runs the bus service on its behalf. The bus company said it would try to identify the driver in question. It also said it had posted a reminder on the drivers’ notice board at the garage about the need to switch their engines off at the bus stop outside Mr X’s property. TfL says the noticeboard must be read by each driver at the start of their shift because it displays up-to-date information about their route, such as any diversions in place.
8. One of TfL’s customer service advisers (‘CSA’) wrote to Mr X explaining the bus company would take appropriate action to resolve the matter. The CSA said the bus company could monitor all vehicles’ telematics systems (electronic monitoring of the mechanical performance of the vehicle) to check for idling. This was done by the driving standards manager daily and any driver found idling would face further action. TfL accepts this information was misleading as the buses used on the route are older vehicles and do not have telematics. It says these buses will be replaced with newer vehicles throughout 2023 and the new vehicles will be fitted with telematics. They will also have stop-start technology so the engine will automatically switch off when the handbrake is applied. This should reduce instances of engine idling outside Mr X’s home.
9. On 4 March Mr X contacted TfL again saying the issue was continuing and asked whether he could submit videos as evidence. TfL confirmed he could do so.
10. Mr X contacted TfL again on 25 October saying he had attempted to resolve the matter by speaking to bus drivers and the bus garage directly. But the problem was ongoing and he wanted the matter to be escalated.
11. A CSA responded saying:
• the garage “may have” reminded drivers of their responsibilities;
• the bus company had a range of disciplinary measures which “can be taken”; and
• the garage “may also provide drivers with a notice displayed to regularly remind drivers of their duties”.
12. TfL accepts customer services did not inform the bus company that there had been further incidents since 1 March 2022 and, without that information, it could not have taken any further action.
13. In November Mr X provided a video and photographs. TfL accepts it did not inform the bus company of this further report.
14. In December Mr X contacted TfL saying he was concerned no progress had been made in relation to his complaints. TfL responded referring Mr X to his local council. TfL accepts this was incorrect information.
15. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

16. TfL accepts there is an issue with buses idling at the bus stop outside Mr X’s property. It also accepts it failed to bring most of Mr X’s complaints to the bus company’s attention so it could take appropriate action. TfL has now informed the bus company of the issue.
17. TfL’s failure to notify the bus company of the ongoing problem causes Mr X a significant injustice. If it had done so, the bus company may have taken action to resolve the matter sooner. Mr X and his mother have therefore had to suffer noise disturbance for several months longer than necessary. Mr X has also been put to significant time and trouble in trying to resolve the matter.
18. Mr X says TfL promised to visit the site and display signs, but it has not done so. TfL denies agreeing to do this. It says the bus company sent driver trainers and supervisors to visit the bus stop to advise drivers to switch their engines off. It also says the appropriate team within TfL has now been asked to consider putting up signs at the bus stop.
19. TfL has also asked team managers within customer services to raise the following matters with their staff: incorrect/misleading information in their responses; the need to inform bus companies of complaints in a timely manner; and the need to be more proactive in dealing with customers.
20. TfL has apologised for its failings and offered to pay Mr X £100 in recognition of the injustice caused.
21. I am satisfied the above actions go some way towards resolving the matter. However, I do not consider the proposed remedy goes far enough. So, I have made additional recommendations below.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. TfL has agreed that, within one month, it will:
• send Mr X a written apology for the failings identified and pay him £250 in recognition of the injustice caused;
• consider putting up signs at the bus stop outside Mr X’s property and inform the Ombudsman of the outcome of its consideration;
• ask the bus company to arrange for supervisors to make further unplanned visits to the bus stop to ensure drivers are switching their engines off.
23. TfL should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I uphold Mr X’s complaint that TfL failed to take adequate action to resolve the problem of buses idling outside his home. I also find TfL gave Mr X incorrect and misleading advice when responding to his complaints.
25. I have completed my investigation on the basis that TfL has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman