Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to relocate a bus stop and place it outside his property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to place a bus stop outside his property. He said the matter caused him frustration. He wants the Council to reconsider the location of the bus stop or to provide him with a financial remedy.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X moved into his property with his family in late 2024. Mr X said before they moved into the property, his solicitor carried out searches for planned works in the area which did not result in any works being done to local bus stops. However, after Mr X moved into the property, he became aware of the Council’s plan to relocate a bus stop and situate it outside his property.
7. As part of his complaint, Mr X said:
• the Council failed to provide any formal notification to the public in relation to its plans to relocate the bus stop. Mr X said had he known of the Council’s plans, he would not have purchased the property;
• the bus stop, its shelter and parked buses would cause obstruction to being able to safely move a car in and out of the property;
• emergency vehicles would also be affected; and
• passengers waiting outside and on the bus, would be able to see into his property.
8. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and it:
• explained to Mr X it had to relocate the bus stop to accommodate a new signalised pedestrian crossing. It said the crossing was being built in response to a previous fatal accident which took place at the location. The Council said the new location of the bus stop was the safest and most convenient place for it;
• said it was not legally required to inform the public of plans to move the bus stop as it did not need a traffic regulation order or planning permission;
• acknowledged Mr X’s concerns with obstruction and advised Mr X and other drivers to take extra care when driving around the bus stop. The Council did not consider the bus stop would cause obstruction to emergency vehicles as the bus stop would not be situated directly outside Mr X’s driveway; and
• said Mr X’s property had well established foliage which provided privacy to his property. The Council added it was not a particularly busy bus stop and any waiting times for passengers would be minimal.
9. The Council appropriately addressed Mr X’s complaint. It explained its reasons for relocating the bus stop. We recognise Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision however this does not mean the Council was at fault.
10. We note Mr X is unhappy the Council did not disclose to the public about its plans however, the Council is correct in that it did not have a statutory duty to provide a formal notification.
11. We will therefore not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

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