Summary: Mr X complained the Authority failed to keep a disabled toilet facility at a bus station in a clean and usable condition. We have found fault by the Authority in failing to ensure the facility was kept clean when Mr X used it, causing injustice. The Authority has agreed to apologise, make a payment to reflect the costs Mr X incurred, and the distress caused, and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I am calling Mr X, complains the Authority failed to keep the disabled toilet facility at a bus station within its area in a clean and usable condition.
2. Mr X has a visual impairment, and because of this he was not aware the facility was not in a clean condition before he used it. He says the facility was in a disgusting state, he and his clothes were soiled, and the incident caused him considerable distress. The staff at the bus station refused to help and told him there were no cleaners on site.
3. Mr X does not consider the Authority’s offer of a goodwill payment of £80 for the cost of his travel home by car, cleaning and replacement of clothes is an adequate remedy for the distress caused by its failure. He is also concerned about the standard of the Authority’s inspection and cleaning routine for the facility.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
5. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. 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

7. I spoke to Mr X, made enquiries of the Authority and read the information Mr X and the Authority provided about the complaint.
8. I invited Mr X and the Authority to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

9. The Authority, as the local transport authority, has responsibility for the provision of transport services within its area.
10. The West Yorkshire Bus Passenger Charter sets out what customers can expect when using bus services within the Authority’s area.
11. This includes offering customers clean, safe, fully accessible and welcoming bus stations.

What happened

12. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Complaint background

13. Mr X planned to use a bus service from a bus station within the Authority’s area. The bus station provides toilet facilities for public use, including a disabled toilet.
14. Mr X used the disabled toilet facility at the bus station. Because of his visual impairment, he was not aware the facility was not in a clean and usable condition. He says the facility was in a disgusting state and he and his clothing were soiled.
15. The incident happened at around 5pm. He immediately reported this to staff at the bus station’s help centre. He asked them to arrange for a cleaner to attend the facility. He was told there were no cleaners on site.
16. Mr X could not continue his journey as planned because of the soiled state of his clothes. He had to arrange for someone to collect him by car. He had to pay for the cost of cleaning the car and dispose of his soiled clothes.

Mr X’s complaint

17. Mr X complained to the Authority the following day. He provided full details of the incident including the location, date and time. He asked for compensation for the the cost of cleaning the car, replacement of clothes and the distress the incident caused him.

The Authority’s response

18. The Authority said in its complaint response:

• it accepted the toilet facility was not clean and usable on this occasion;
• the toilets were subject to regular cleaning and inspections during the operating hours of the bus station; and
• while it had a robust system in place for the cleaning and maintenance of the facility, it could only be as clean as the last user left it. Unfortunately, on this occasion Mr X had used the facility between inspections.

19. As a goodwill gesture it offered to make Mr X a payment of £80 to cover the cost of petrol, and cleaning, for the car journey and the replacement of his clothes.

The Authority’s response to our enquiries

20. Mr X was not satisfied with the Authority’s response and brought his complaint to us.
21. We asked the Authority to provide records of:

• its procedures for the inspection and cleaning of disabled toilet facilities at its sites;
• the arrangements in place for inspecting and cleaning this disabled toilet facility at the bus station;
• the inspections and cleaning of the disabled toilet facility carried out on the day of the incident: and
• the availability of cleaning staff at the bus station on the day of the incident.

22. In response the Authority provided:

• its training procedure document. This sets out the procedure for cleaning a toilet; and
• the staff roster for cleaners on duty at the bus station that day. This shows there should have been one cleaner on duty from 7am to 2.54pm, a second from 9am to 4.54pm, and a third from 9am to 5pm.

23. It told us:

• toilets at the bus station are checked and cleaned at least every hour. Faults are immediately reported, and repairs initiated; and
• the last cleaner on duty at the bus station that day finished at 16.54.

24. The Authority did not provide any records of either:

• the system in place for cleaning and inspecting the toilet facilities at the bus station;
• instructions to staff at the bus station about the system and how it should be operated and monitored; or
• times of the inspections and cleaning of the toilet facilities completed at the bus station on the day of the incident.

My view – was there fault by the Authority causing injustice?

25. The Authority was responsible, as set out in the Passenger Charter, for ensuring facilities offered at its bus stations were clean.
26. It has accepted that when Mr X used the disabled toilet facility it was not in a clean and usable condition.
27. The Authority has suggested this was because Mr X had used the facility in between inspections. But it has failed to provide any evidence of the robust cleaning and inspection system it says is in place. And it has failed to provide any evidence the facility was regularly inspected and cleaned before Mr X used it.
28. On this basis, my view is it is more likely the facility was in an unclean condition when Mr X used it because of the failure to regularly inspect and clean the facility. This failure to ensure the facility was kept clean was fault.
29. Because of this fault, when Mr X used the facility, it was in an unclean and unhygienic condition. He and clothes were soiled, and his travel plans disrupted. This very unpleasant incident also caused him considerable personal distress.
30. It is clearly essential for health reasons that where toilets are provided for public use, they are maintained in a hygienic and clean condition. This is particularly important for disabled toilet facilities because of the difficulties their users face in finding alternative facilities.
31. I am concerned about the lack of evidence the Authority has provided about the system it has in place, not only for inspecting and cleaning public toilet facilities in its transport network but also supervising and monitoring this system. It was unable to provide records of the inspections and cleaning of the disabled toilet facility completed on the day of the incident.
32. I also note there do not appear to be any arrangements for cleaning and inspecting toilet facilities at the bus station before 7am and after 5pm although it is open outside of these hours.
33. The Authority has agreed to make the service improvements I recommended to address these concerns.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults and, within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Authority has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X for its failure to ensure clean toilet facilities were maintained at the bus station. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology; and
2. pay Mr X a total of £230, as the total of (a) the £80 it offered as a goodwill payment for the costs of petrol, car cleaning and replacement clothing; and (b) the further amount of £150 to reflect the distress caused by its failure. This is a symbolic amount based on our guidance on remedies.
35. And within three months from the date of our final decision, the Authority has agreed to review its procedures and make any changes needed to address the concerns about:
1. its system for inspecting and cleaning public toilet facilities in its transport network;
2. the supervision and monitoring of this system, including record keeping of inspections and cleaning carried out; and
3. the arrangements for maintaining and monitoring of the cleanliness of toilet facilities at bus stations for the entire period they are open for passenger use.
36. The Authority should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Authority causing injustice. The Authority has agreed to take the above actions as a suitable way to remedy this injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman