Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about two bus stops near to her property being inaccessible due to the lack of bus stop markings and height of the kerbs. This is because an investigation could not add to the Council’s investigation and response. In addition, we could not achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains two bus stops near to her property are inaccessible due to the lack of bus stop markings and due to the height of the kerbs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X said there are two bus stops outside her property that are not accessible. She says this is because there are no bus stop markings and so cars park and block the intended boarding area. She also complains the kerbs are not accessible as they are very low to the ground.
6. In its complaint response, the Council accepted the lack of bust stop markings means vehicles do park within the intended boarding area. Council acknowledges this prevents buses from aligning to the footway and this hinders access for some users, particularly those with restricted mobility.
7. The Council also acknowledged that the height of the kerbs by the bus stops did not adhere to Transport for London’s guidance of a minimum height of 100mm, with 140mm being ideal. The Council said the kerbs were around 40mm above the road surface.
8. The Council explained it had previously tried to tackle the two issues, but said following public consultation, objections were received which resulted in the proposals being postponed. The Council confirmed it was committed to the works to make the two bus stops more accessible and advised Mrs X it had submitted its proposed bus stop accessibility schemes for 2024/25, which included these two bus stops. However, the Council said it needed to wait for funding before it could move forward with the necessary works.
9. An investigation is not justified as we could not add to the Council’s investigation and complaint response. The Council has already acknowledged and accepted the two bus stops are not accessible and that it is committed to completing works to make both stops more accessible for the public. An investigation by the Ombudsman could not add anything further to this.
10. Further, an investigation could not achieve the outcome Mrs X wants, which is for works to be completed to the bus stops. This is because the Council has explained it is waiting for funding before it can pursue the works. It is a matter for the Council to decide how it allocates its budget/funding and the Ombudsman cannot intervene in this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because an investigation could not add to the Council’s investigation and response. In addition, we could not achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman