Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with concerns raised about a bus stop located outside the complainants property. This is because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains about how the Council dealt with his concerns about a bus stop outside his property. He says passengers on buses can see into his children’s bedroom windows and that the buses cause pollution and noise. Mr X would like the bus stop moved.

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. (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. The Council’s policy on the permanent removal of bus stops says that a request will only be considered if it can be shown that there is a safety issue with the stop being in a particular location.
6. In response to Mr X’s complaint a site visit was carried out which concluded that there was no safety issue about the stop, the Council also noted that there had not been any reported accidents related to the stop.
7. The Council spoke to the bus operator who told the Council that the bus stop is busy and therefore important to the operator and their users. The Council asked the bus operator to tell their drivers to avoid waiting at the stop, to mitigate any emissions impacting on Mr X and his family.
8. The Council told Mr X that it had no control over what type of buses the operator should use and could therefore not tell it to only use single decker buses, nor could it dictate to the operator what time buses should run on the route.
9. The Council concluded that the bus stop served many people in the community who do not own cars and that it strongly advocates the use of public transport and for these reasons had no plans to move the stop.
10. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matter. The Council considered Mr X’s request for the bus stop to be moved and fully explained its reasons for not doing so. This decision was in line with its policy on bust stop removals Whilst Mr X strongly disagrees with the approach taken by the Council this does not mean it has done anything wrong.
11. I am also satisfied that the action the Council took to try to mitigate Mr X’s concerns were proportionate. It explained to Mr X that it had no power to dictate to the bus operator what buses it should use and what times it should operate. It did ask the bus operator to avoid waiting at the stop, something the operator agreed to do. I see no evidence of fault in the Council’s approach.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman