Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X and Mrs Y’s complaint that the Council failed to properly carry out a full consultation before moving a bus stop. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainants want, and further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X and Mrs Y complain about the Council’s decision to relocate a busy bus stop without properly consulting residents. They say the Council limited the consultation, advertised the proposals poorly, ignored daily users and held closed meetings with local schools instead of residents. The complainants say removing the bus stop for a cycle lane will make travel harder, double walking distances for elderly and disabled people, and cut easy links to other routes. They want the Council to stop the relocation or make it a dedicated line and carry out a further, more inclusive consultation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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 acknowledged Mrs X’s concerns but said it had to move the original bus stop to comply with the Equality Act and Disability Discrimination Act. The Council explained the existing location for the bus stop did not provide enough pavement width to allow buses to use wheelchair ramps to provide proper access to disabled passengers. The Council installed a new accessible bus stop just over 200 metres away from the original location as the nearest safest option.
6. The Council explained statutory consultation was not required but it carried out a non-statutory consultation through an online survey, on-site posters, and notices to key stakeholders, including local schools. It accepted the consultation may not have reached all residents but said it exceeded legal requirements.
7. The Council considered alternative sites suggested during consultation but rejected them due to safety and space limits. The Council also met with Mrs X at the location of the original bus stop to discuss her concerns and answer her questions about the new location.
8. The Council was entitled to relocate the bus stop to meet its legal duties under the Disability Discrimination Act and Equality Act. There appears no evidence of procedural fault in the Council’s decision-making that would allow us to question the merits of its decision. Mrs X and Mrs Y’s strong disagreement with the Council’s decision is not evidence of fault.
9. We will not investigate Mrs X and Mrs Y’s complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome they want and further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X and Mrs Y’s complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome they want, and further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman