Summary: Mr X complained about Transport for London’s decision to place a temporary toilet for bus drivers outside his home and a delay in moving the toilet to a permanent location. Transport for London was not at fault. It had permission to install the toilet and there is no evidence of a delay in its efforts to move the toilet to a permanent location.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about Transport for London’s decision to place a temporary toilet for bus drivers outside his home and a delay in moving the toilet to a permanent location. Mr X said this impacted his ability to sell his home and caused him unnecessary stress. He wanted Transport for London to move the toilet to a permanent site without delay and compensate him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and Transport for London as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr X and Transport for London have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Law

6. Not all development needs planning permission from local planning authorities. Certain developments are deemed permitted, providing they fall within limits set within regulations. This type of development is known as ‘permitted development’.
7. Transport for London (TfL) has permitted development rights and a Certificate of Lawfulness from the Council for bus driver facilities.

What happened

8. In May 2024 Mr X’s local council (the Council) issued a licence to TfL to install a temporary bus driver toilet on land next to Mr X’s home. TfL installed the toilet in June 2024. In August 2024 TfL carried out a feasibility study to decide where to locate a permanent toilet to replace the temporary one. The study recommended a location away from Mr X’s home.
9. At the same time Mr X complained to TfL. He said it did not have planning permission to install the toilet, and it was impacting his ability to sell his home. He wanted TfL to move the toilet and compensate him.
10. TfL continued to liaise with the Council over a permanent location for the toilet and sought a meeting to discuss permanent locations. TfL responded to Mr X’s complaint in September 2024. It explained the toilet was temporary and it was working with the Council on a permanent location. It said it had permission to place the temporary toilet in its current location through its permitted development rights and the Council had granted it a licence to use the land. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
11. Emails between the Council and TfL show the Council was happy with the current location. The Council said it would review any permanent plans, but any move would need a new or amended licence.
12. In late September TfL explored screening or painting the toilet but noted any screening was not covered under its permitted development rights and would need planning permission. In October 2024 TfL asked the Council to clarify the ownership for its preferred permanent site. The Council provided details of the land it could grant a licence for and where ownership was unknown. Later in October TfL responded to the Council with an amended plan to relocate the temporary toilet. The Council said it would check ownership and respond.
13. In November 2024 TfL told Mr X it was trying to resolve the matter and that it was waiting on a response from the Council. In late November TfL told the Council it wanted to amend the location of the permanent toilet due to issues with the bus turning circle. The new location remained away from Mr X’s home. In its correspondence with the Council, TfL said it was still looking to move the temporary toilet and then gain permission for a permanent unit.
14. The Council told TfL it had no issues with the new site and said it would amend the licence as soon as TfL sent it across. TfL responded saying it was now looking for a permanent licence as opposed to a new temporary one. The Council said it was happy to look at a longer-term agreement. TfL provided details of its permanent plan in early December 2024 and asked the Council what it needed to do to move the plan forward. TfL then chased the Council for a response throughout December and January.
15. In February 2025 the Council queried whether TfL needed planning permission for a permanent site. TfL arranged a meeting with the Council, both agreed actions to move forward with a permanent site for the toilet.

My findings

16. Transport for London had permission from the Council to install the temporary toilet near Mr X’s home. While Mr X was unhappy with TfL’s choice of location, it was entitled to install the toilet. The Ombudsman cannot question an organisation’s decision if it is made without fault. TfL has a licence to install the toilet, so I cannot criticise its decision. TfL was not at fault.
17. TfL began exploring a permanent location for the toilet in August 2024. Since then, it has communicated with contractors and the Council over possible permanent sites and chased the Council for responses to try to speed up the process. TfL decided against moving the toilet to a new temporary location and instead focused its efforts on a permanent location away from Mr X’s home. This is a decision TfL was entitled to make. TfL was not at fault.

Back to top

Decision

18. I find no fault and have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman