Transport for London (20 013 897)

Category : Transport and highways > Traffic management

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 25 Jan 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the removal of a loading bay. The complaint is late and the change has not caused a significant enough injustice for us to investigate.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains about Transport for London (TfL) removing a loading bay outside his business. He states this has caused hardship for his business.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something an authority has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
  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 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

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant, complaint correspondence from TfL and online maps and photographs of the relevant area.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Mr X’s business is on the corner of a main road and a side road. There used to be a loading bay on the side road outside his building. TfL removed that loading bay and replaced it with a cycle lane in 2018. Mr X knew about the change and was dissatisfied then. He did not complain to us until March 2021, over two years later, so the restriction in paragraph 2 applies to this complaint.
  2. Mr X told us he had communicated with TfL about the matter in 2018 and after, saying he ‘allowed them an interim period and further extended.’ However, I consider 12 months from the change in 2018 would have been ample time for Mr X to give TfL about a matter he believed was adversely affecting him. Mr X could reasonably have complained to us within 12 months. Information on complaining to us about TfL is fairly easily available. So I do not see good reason to accept the complaint late.
  3. Even if the complaint was not late, or if there were good reasons to accept the complaint despite its lateness, there is another reason we will not investigate. As paragraph 3 explained, we will only investigate a complaint if the authority’s alleged fault has caused a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation. I accept the loss of the loading bay immediately outside Mr X’s building causes some inconvenience. However, there is another loading bay on the main road around 30 metres from Mr X’s building. I recognise that is farther away from Mr X’s building than the previous bay was and it is shared with other nearby businesses. However, while loading and unloading for Mr X’s business is not as convenient as it was before, in the circumstances I am not persuaded the change amounts to a significant enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to pursuing the complaint.
  4. Mr X also says the cycle lane is pointless in this location and he believes it makes the road layout more dangerous. However, I do not consider those points show a significant enough injustice to Mr X to justify the Ombudsman investigating. It is not our role to oversee changes to road layouts generally.
  5. Mr X is also dissatisfied with how TfL handled his formal complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the complaint is late and because the injustice is not significant enough.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings