Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about relocating a bus stop. This is because it is unlikely that we would find fault in how the Council reached its decision. And the complainant has not suffered enough personal injustice to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr J, says the Council:
• failed to give proper reasons for moving a bus stop
• failed to consider the effect moving the bus stop has on road safety
• used inappropriate materials to resurface the pavement which is in a conservation area
• failed to provide information; and
• failed to consider the effect of its decision on residents
2. Mr J says this has caused him stress, aggravation and time spent contacting the Council. He also says that the junction of his road is dangerous and worse when a bus is at the stop.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr J, including the Council’s response to him.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In response to Mr J’s complaint, the Council says:
• The bus stop is designed according to guidance from Transport for London, which is, in any effect, guidance and site-specific issues must be considered.
• The stops in the conservation area are heritage style black posts. Block and paving resurfacing have been used to match existing. Tarmac has been chosen to match nearby resurfaced pavement and is the likely choice for future resurfacing.
• Traffic data for the last five years shows no concerns and the location of the bus stop provides better crossing for pedestrians.
• It has no duty to consult any specific people when installing bus stops. However, it does discuss proposed locations with those who look out on the location or who will lose a parking location.
• Traffic using the junction can wait until the stop is clear if they consider their visibility is impaired. It has calculated that if all buses pull in at the bus stop this will mean a bus is stationary at the stop for 1% of each day.
7. I understand Mr J is not happy at the lack of consultation and the changes to the junction of his road. However, the Council does not have to consult on the proposed relocation of bus stops. The stop is not outside his property and does not affect his parking.
8. I do not consider that Mr J’s claimed injustice when entering or existing his road is personal to him. All those using the junction will have the same experience. If he believes his visibility is compromised when a bus is standing at the stop, then he can wait until it has moved off.
9. Nor do I consider that the use of block and paving or tarmac to resurface pavements causes him a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council decided to relocate the bus stop. Nor do we consider Mr J has suffered sufficient personal injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman