Summary: Mr B complains about the positioning of a bus stop near his property which is affecting his ability to access his property. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council has ignored his requests to take action to stop a bus stop encroaching on to his property and to prevent vehicles blocking his access because of its position. He wants the Council to change the layout of the bus stop and extend the pavement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B and the Council. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B complained to the Council about the positioning of a bus stop near his house which he says acts to obstruct his access and leads other vehicles to do the same.
6. In its initial response to Mr B the Council’s Transport Strategy Team told him it would be liaising with its engineers to find the best way to deliver a long-term outcome to his concerns.
7. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mr B took his complaint back to the Council and it addressed it under two stages of its complaints procedure.
8. In responding, the Council noted the bus stop is several metres in advance of Mr B’s property so that buses stop significantly before it and that the section of lay by immediately in front of his home serves as a run off and taper exit so that buses are only temporarily in front of it as they wait for a gap in the traffic to re-join the carriageway.
9. The Council explained it had consulted with a Highways Inspector who said that reducing the length of the exit taper would not only cause operational difficulties for buses but would also detract from bus stop design standards.
10. The Council did not accept its actions had led to Mr B’s access being blocked. It recognised his wish for amendments to the traffic scheme for the area close to his property but explained these would only take place as part of a design change in a wider area for which funding would be required and sourced.

Assessment

11. The Council properly considered the complaints Mr B made about the bus stop positioning and road lay out. However, it has explained budgetary constraints mean it will not carry out works just in the area which affects him and instead this work will be considered when they form part of a larger scheme change for a wider area.
12. While this is clearly disappointing for Mr B, the Council is responsible for assessing and prioritising works and the cost implications for them. The merits of its decisions are not open to review by the Ombudsman no matter how strongly Mr B may disagree with them.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman