Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the re-siting of a bus shelter closer to Mr X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of injustice to him to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council moving a nearby bus shelter closer to his home without informing residents. He says the shelter may now be a safety risk for pedestrians and he wants the Council to remove it altogether as it is seldom used.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council moved a bus shelter which was set at an angle to his home near a lay-by, to being directly opposite. He says the residents were not consulted about the re-positioning and that he believes it could be dangerous for users because it is closer to the highway and traffic. He complained to the Council and said it should be moved or removed altogether as it is seldom used.
6. The Council accepts that residents were not informed but says this was part of a highway improvement scheme including closure of the lay-by. The Council advised residents of the scheme but was not aware of the need to re-locate the shelter at the time of consultation. This was later identified, and the Council accepts it could have informed residents at that time, although they could not appeal against the relocation.
7. Mr X says the shelter is an eyesore and should be removed completely because it is seldom used. The Council says it is still a functioning bus stop, it does not breach any regulations and it will not be removed as it performs the same function as in its previous nearby location.
8. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter. In this case the bus shelter was sited close to its new location previously and there is no significant change which would cause injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the re-siting of a bus shelter closer to Mr X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of injustice to him to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman