Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about Transport for London’s decision to move a bus stop. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms B is unhappy with Transport for London’s (TfL) decision to move a bus stop near a tennis club that she is the chairman of. Ms B says the visibility of oncoming traffic from the right when exiting the driveway is impaired by people standing under the bus shelter. Ms B says it has created a danger and risk to tennis club members which was not previously there.

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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information from Ms B and TfL. I shared a draft version of this statement with Ms B and invited her comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms B is the chairman of a tennis club. She is unhappy TfL moved a bus stop near to the driveway of the tennis club. She complained to TfL about the safety of tennis club members when exiting the driveway and asked for it to move the bus stop.
5. In its response to Ms B’s complaint, TfL explained the Borough had asked it to design and install a new pedestrian crossing outside a hospital. As part of the design, it moved the bus stop for safety reasons. TfL explained if the bus stop remained in its original position it would have been a greater risk because it would have impaired motorists’ vision of the pedestrian crossing.
6. TfL also explained the Borough had carried out public consultation about the new bus stop. During the consultation, there was a trial period of six months where residents could contact customer services with feedback. TfL said the bus stop was on a public road in the Borough’s responsibility and so Ms B would need to contact it if she wanted the bus stop moved. Ms B says she was unaware of the consultation.
7. Ms B says she has witnessed several near misses and is worried about what might happen. However, the Ombudsman would not normally investigate speculative injustice, or something which has not happened. It is also the case it is the responsibility of road users to ensure they can manoeuvre safely given all the relevant road conditions including pedestrian traffic. The Ombudsman would not likely be able to say any road traffic incident resulted from action by TfL.
8. We cannot question whether TfL’s decision was right or wrong because Ms B disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. In Ms B’s case, TfL explained its reason for moving the bus stop. It was also subject to public consultation. Based on the information available, there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman