Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the introduction of bus gates and driving restrictions in the city centre discriminate against people with disabilities. In particular, they say they are no longer able to go to their favourite restaurant. There is no evidence of fault in the consultation or decision making process in this case and so the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision reached.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain the introduction of bus gates and driving restrictions in the city centre discriminate against people with disabilities.
2. Mrs X has mobility issues and she now cannot get to her favourite restaurant as a result of the traffic restrictions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr and Mrs X live in the Leeds area and were regular visitors to the city centre for leisure purposes. Mrs X is disabled. She has osteoarthritis which affects her mobility and restricts the distance she can walk. Mr and Mrs X do not have their own car and rely on public transport and taxis.
7. The Council introduced changes to the city centre to improve accessibility for bus users, pedestrians and cyclists. Bus gates were created meaning that only buses and licensed hackney carriages are permitted on certain streets at certain times of day. The Council carried out extensive consultation on the proposed changes before introducing them. This included with affected businesses and groups representing hackney and private hire taxis and with groups representing disabled people. The Council also held a consultation event at Leeds art gallery. It says the consultation generated more than 8,100 responses.
8. The final scheme was considered by the Executive Board of the Council and the report setting out the proposal included a specific section on equality, diversity, cohesion and integration. The report found that the impacts of the proposed changes would overall be positive across the equality strands. However, it did highlight some potential negative impacts.
9. It said the removal/relocation of disabled parking and taxi ranks could have a negative impact on people with reduced mobility. The changes and restrictions on general traffic could have a negative impact on people trying to access the city centre by car including blue badge holders. The restrictions on private hire vehicles may impact on people with restricted mobility.
10. The report said the some of the negative impacts could be eliminated with good design. It said it intended to replace the disabled parking provision lost as a result of the scheme. It also said a survey of taxi use had been undertaken prior to proposals to remove the taxi rank from the Headrow gateway. It said that a high percentage of taxis leaving the rank were unoccupied and so concluded the area was used more as a waiting area.
11. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council about the changes in January 2022. He complained the Council was directly discriminating against disabled people as private hire taxis were no longer allowed on the Headrow. He said hackney carriages were not suitable for disabled people meaning disabled people could no longer go out to eat in Leeds city centre.
12. The Council’s response explained that private hire vehicles could not access certain parts of the city centre at certain times due to the bus gates and bus lanes. It said the reason for this was to maintain the reliability of the bus network by reducing congestion in the city centre. It said there were 3849 private hire vehicles licensed and working in Leeds. It said if they were allowed in the city centre there would be a significant growth in congestion. It said there were 515 hackney carriage vehicles and that 47% of these were adapted for wheelchair use compared to only 2% of private hire vehicles.
13. It said there were still many parts of the city centre that could be accessed by private cars, including private hire taxis, to pick up and drop off passengers. It explained it had consulted extensively before implementing the scheme and had introduced other measures including an increase in the number of blue badge parking spaces near the city centre core; wider footways increasing accessibility for wheelchair and mobility scooter users; more benches increasing the opportunity for rest and more and wider pedestrian crossings making it easier to cross the road.
14. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints process. He said hackney carriages were not suitable for his wife as she could not get into them due to her disability. Mr X explained this was having a detrimental effect on her physical and mental wellbeing and she felt isolated because she could no longer get into town. He explained they did not drive and so access to blue badge parking spaces was not relevant to them. Mr X explained that there was a particular restaurant they used to visit on the Headrow. They used to get a taxi to right outside the restaurant but now they had to stop further away and walk around the building which was too far for his wife. Mr X considered the Council had not properly considered the equality and disability discrimination issues.
15. The Council responded saying it was possible to book a hackney carriage in advance and request a specific vehicle to meet passenger requirements. It provided details and phone numbers for companies that offer that service. It said that its view remained that allowing hackney carriages into bus lanes is manageable and can be justified in terms of additional customer benefits .
16. It said that as it had identified hackney carriages could be pre-booked and there was a taxi rank directly outside Mr and Mrs X’s preferred restaurant, that it did not uphold this part of his complaint. It also provided details of nearby dropping off points for private hire taxis.
17. The Council went on to provide details of the decision making process and how this included consideration of equality and diversity issues and the consultation that had taken place. It provided links to the full report for its consideration of the changes to the city centre roads. The Council said that it would not be feasible to carry out a city wide direct consultation but it had used press releases, social media, websites and newsletters to promote the proposed changes. It concluded that the consultation and engagement carried out on this project was in line with expected levels and so did not uphold this part of Mr X’s complaint.
18. Dissatisfied, Mr and Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

19. Mr and Mrs X say the introduction of bus gates and driving restrictions in the city centre discriminate against disabled people. They say it means they cannot access the city centre for leisure purposes in the same way as they did previously. In particular, they are no longer able to go to their preferred restaurant.
20. The Ombudsman’s role is to review councils’ adherence to procedure in making decisions. Where a council has followed the correct process, considered all relevant information, and given clear reasons for its decision, we generally cannot criticise it. We do not make decisions on councils’ behalf, or provide a route of appeal against their decisions, and we cannot uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with a council’s decision.
21. I am satisfied the Council followed the correct process when making the decision to introduce bus gates and driving restrictions in the city centre. I have seen the reports prepared for the Executive Board including the consideration given to equality and diversity issues. Many of the points raised by Mr and Mrs X were considered and are detailed in the reports. The Council acknowledges the proposals may have some negative impact on the disabled. However, the reports also highlight the many positive impacts the changes will achieve. While I appreciate Mr and Mrs X feel the impact on them is great and that it has had a significant adverse impact on Mrs X in particular, I cannot conclude there has been fault in the decision making process in this case.
22. The Council was aware that by restricting access to private hire vehicles that this could have a negative impact on some people with restricted mobility. However, the judgement reached is that the positives outweigh any negatives and so the changes should be introduced. I am satisfied this is a decision it was entitled to take. While I acknowledge Mr and Mrs X do not like the decision made, I have not seen any evidence of fault in the process leading to that decision and so I am unable to criticise it.
23. The changes have had a negative impact on Mr and Mrs X and means they can no longer access the city centre in the same way as they used to. The Council was aware there would be some negative impacts but this does not mean the decision to approve the scheme amounts to fault. I note that in response to Mr and Mrs X’s complaints the Council provided advice and information that could help them access the city centre using the hackney carriages and buses.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman