Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to site a bus stop close to her despite her objections that it would affect her privacy. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains about the Council’s decision to install a bus stop near her home as part of a traffic management scheme for the area. She says the bus stop is an invasion of her privacy and she will have to cope with people waiting and looking into her home or leaving litter outside. She also says the Council did not include full details of the scheme with its notification letters.

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’. 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Ms X submitted with her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms X was notified about a proposed Traffic Management Order for her area which introduced new parking and traffic measures and involved the re-siting of bus stops. She says the letters did not give details of the re-siting of bus stops, one of which was to be placed outside her home. The letter referred to the Council’s website for full details and Ms X objected to the proposals when she saw the new bus stop site.
5. Ms X told the Council that she did not want school children and others waiting near her property as this would result in swearing, littering and invasion of her privacy from passengers on the bus looking into her home. The Council told her that there was no statutory right to consultation and that residents had an opportunity to make any objections regardless of this. The Council has no obligation to change the scheme because there are objections.
6. It is clear that Ms X was aware of the proposed scheme to re-site bus stops. The Council made the decision after recommendations from Transport for London which is the traffic authority. We would not consider views from a waiting bus as an invasion of privacy as this is no different from the view which is obtained from any passing bus or vehicles at any time.
7. 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. In this case the Council followed the correct procedure for the traffic management scheme and residents were given an opportunity to comment on the proposals.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman