Summary: The Ombudsman discontinued his investigation, making no finding about fault, as the Council made a reasonable and suitable offer to resolve Mr X’s complaint about moving a bus shelter near his property.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council failed to consult him or properly consider the implications of installing a bus shelter near his property. Mr X says the bus shelter is too close to his property and encloses and narrows the pavement making it unsafe for use by pedestrians and nearby residents, and deters use of the nearby shop. Mr X also says that, since moving the shelter, anti-social behaviour, littering and property damage has increased in the area. Mr X wants the Council to move the bus shelter to a wider pavement. Or, if the shelter stays in its present location, it should be closer to the kerb edge and redesigned so more pavement is available for passing pedestrians.

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. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have:

• considered Mr X’s written complaint and supporting papers;
• talked to Mr X about the complaint;
• asked for and considered the Council’s response to the complaint;
• shared with Mr X the Council’s offer to resolve the complaint and considered Mr X’s and the Council’s further comments; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Mr X and the Council and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Councils have powers to provide bus shelters in public roads for use by people travelling by bus. The Council, as part of a town centre refurbishment scheme that involved changes to the layout of a road, moved an existing bus shelter. The Council says it publicised the town centre scheme, including by ‘letter drop’ to nearby affected residents and businesses, but did not specifically and separately publicise the proposed change to the bus shelter.
6. Mr X says he first knew of the new position for the bus shelter after it was moved close to his property. Mr X complained to the Council saying he had not been consulted about moving the bus shelter and making several points about why its new position was unsuitable. Mr X also said the shelter was a focus for anti-social behaviour.
7. In response, the Council explained how moving the bus shelter was part of the publicised town centre scheme. The Council also said the local highway authority (Hertfordshire County Council) had agreed the plans for changing the road layout, which included moving the bus shelter. The new position had been ‘safety audited’ and complied with Government guidance about access for wheelchair users. The Council also said, having consulted with the police and reviewed local CCTV recordings, it had no evidence of increased anti-social behaviour near the bus shelter.
8. In the correspondence that followed, Mr X suggested changes to the bus shelter that he said would resolve problems. The Council said changing the bus shelter was not straightforward and the current position and design of the shelter met relevant guidelines.
9. When investigating, the Ombudsman invites councils to suggest how a complaint may be resolved. Here, expressly not accepting it had acted wrongly, the Council offered to change the bus shelter. The Council said Mr X had asked it, and the Ombudsman, to move the bus shelter closer to the kerb edge and turn it 180°. The Council therefore said it would rotate the bus shelter and move it up to 1.3 metres closer to the kerb edge. The Council said it could complete the changes within 28 days of Mr X agreeing its proposal.
10. In further correspondence, Mr X not having agreed the proposal, the Council said it might be possible to reposition the bus shelter. However, this would need consultation with the local highway authority and nearby owners/occupiers; a safety audit; and other approvals involving a third party’s equipment.
11. Mr X’s current preferred outcome is to move the bus shelter to a new position; rotate it 180°; and for it to be close to the kerb edge. The Council is willing to consider moving the shelter but not to also rotate it and place it closer to the kerb edge.

Consideration

12. The Council has offered to resolve Mr X’s complaint by rotating the bus shelter and moving it 1.3 metres closer to the kerb edge. The Council says it will complete the necessary work within 28 days of Mr X agreeing the proposal. I find the Council’s offer reasonable and suitable and achieves an outcome sought by Mr X. And, it is unlikely that further investigation, even if it revealed evidence of fault by the Council, could reasonably and proportionately achieve more for Mr X. However, this does not prevent Mr X and the Council from discussing the possibility of moving the shelter.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I discontinued my investigation following the Council’s offer to resolve the complaint as set out paragraph 12 of this statement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman