Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to position a bus stop outside his property. This is because the decision did not cause Mr X significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council misled and failed to properly consult residents about the positioning of a bus stop on the road outside his property. He also complains the Council failed to carry out a safety audit before deciding to put the bus stop in its current location. He says this has resulted in a loss of privacy and affected the value of his property.

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 do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X’s representative (Mr Y) and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
6. It is however not our role to remedy pure economic loss such as a reduction in the value of private property. If Mr X considers the Council’s decision to place the bus stop outside his property has significantly impacted on his property value he may wish to seek legal advice about a claim through the courts.
7. The Council accepts it failed to notify Mr X and other residents of the plans to position the bus stop outside his property and it has apologised for this. It does not however consider the decision causes Mr X significant injustice and I am inclined to agree.
8. The bus stop is on the opposite side of the road from Mr X’s property and a considerable distance away from the windows he says are directly affected by it. The Council generally considers a distance of 21m sufficient to not cause significant overlooking between directly facing windows and the distance between Mr X’s windows and the bus stop is clearly more than this. There is also a road in between Mr X’s property and the bus stop, along with boundary treatments on Mr X’s side which provide further mitigation of any views of his property. I do not therefore consider any overlooking caused by the bus stop to be significant enough to warrant investigation

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s decision did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman