The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will use our discretion not to investigate this complaint about bus accessibility for a wheelchair user.
The complaint
The complainant, Ms X, says a bus driver refused to lower the ramp so she could access the bus using a wheelchair; the driver incorrectly said she must be accompanied by a carer. Ms X does not want anyone else to experience the same discrimination.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended) We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of other complaint handling bodies. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X is a wheelchair user. She tried to board a bus last year but the driver refused to lower the ramp because she did not have a carer with her.
Ms X complained to the bus company who did not reply.
Ms X complained to the organisation (Y) that deals with complaints about bus services. The organisation told Ms X it contacted the bus company but it did not reply. The organisation signposted Ms X to the Council.
Ms X contacted the Council. The Council spoke to the bus company who said it was aware of its duties to assist wheelchair users and it appeared to be a driver issue. It explained the driver no longer works for the firm. The Council wrote to Ms X in February and explained it had spoken to the firm who said they are aware drivers need to help wheelchair users by lowering the ramp and a carer is not required to travel with the wheelchair user. The firm confirmed the driver no longer works for the company. The Council said it had asked the firm to remind all its drivers of their responsibilities.
The Council told me the firm no longer has the contract for the bus route Ms X used when the incident occurred.
I can appreciate this was a difficult incident for Ms X and one that should not have occurred. However, I will not start an investigation for the following reasons. Ms X contacted organisation Y which is the appropriate body to consider complaints about buses outside London. If Ms X is dissatisfied with the response from Y she could ask if she could use its appeal process or make a complaint if she is dissatisfied with its response.
The responsibility for bus service complaints in relation to accessibility issues rests with Y. However, the Council responded appropriately to the complaint by discussing it with the firm, recommending it remind drivers of their responsibilities, and explaining this to Ms X.
In addition, although the incident was unacceptable, the driver has left and the firm believes it was an isolated driver incident. I am aware that in one document Ms X referred to the same incident happening with two drivers on the same day; but, from the information I have seen, Ms X did not make this clear in the letter to the Council which is why the response relates to one driver. And, in any case, this is primarily a matter for Y.
Final decision
We will use our discretion not to use investigate this complaint due to role of Y and the Council’s response.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman