Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a bus route close to the complainant’s home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by Transport for London.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained Transport for London (TfL) amended a bus route so it uses the road on which he lives. Mr X complained the buses cause noise, pollution, vibrations, and damage to the road. He says the buses travel too fast, are driven aggressively, and reverse along the road to avoid blockages. Mr X says the vehicles’ reversing warning signal causes a nuisance. Mr X says there are signs on the road prohibiting large vehicles such as buses at certain times but they are being ignored.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached that is likely to have affected 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 the complainant and the Authority.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We will not start an investigation into Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with TfL’s decision to introduce the revised bus route.
7. In its responses to Mr X, TfL has explained the rationale for introducing the revised route. It has explained the Police and local London Borough were involved in ensuring the route is suitable. While I know Mr X disagrees with the route of the new service, that does not mean the decision is wrong. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant us investigating.
8. I recognise Mr X’s frustrations about noise, vibrations and pollution from the vehicles. But these issues flow from the routing of the service close to Mr X’s home. Because of the lack of fault by TfL in introducing the revised route, an investigation could not address these issues.
9. TfL has passed Mr X’s concerns about speeding vehicles onto the operator and asked him to provide more details if possible. It is unlikely we could ever say the buses are being driven too fast, or the drivers are wrong to reverse to avoid obstructions.
10. TfL has explained the signs prohibiting buses and the condition of the public highway are for the local London Borough – Barnet Council. Mr X should therefore complain to Barnet Council about these issues. If he was unhappy with the response, he could make a fresh complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by Transport for London.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman