01254 828 300 
A case against East London Bus & Coach Company Ltd was dismissed on Friday 28 March 2025 by a London County Court after a trial, when the Judge found insufficient evidence to support the Claimant’s version of events. The case highlights the importance of objective evidence, such as CCTV footage, in determining liability in road traffic claims.
The claim: Alleged bus collision
On 27th February 2017, Saqib Ahmed, then 14, alleged that he was hit by a bus while waiting at a bus stop after school. He stated he was looking down at his phone when he felt an impact on the right side of his head. He took a photo of the bus before boarding to speak to the driver and later reported the incident to his father, who took him to A&E.
The defence: No contact occurred
The bus driver denied that his vehicle had struck the Claimant. He stated that he was aware of a group of schoolchildren waiting at the stop but was confident that he had not encroached onto the pavement or driven too close to the curb.
In support of the defence, the Court was presented with:
- CCTV footage from the bus, which captured still images every two seconds from both the front-facing camera and the side door camera.
- A Google Maps image of the bus stop location to establish the road layout.
- Technical details about the bus design, including the position of its wing mirrors relative to the pavement.
Court findings
After carefully analysing the evidence, the Court made the following crucial findings:
- No CCTV evidence of impact – Footage showed a clear gap between the bus and the waiting passengers.
- Lack of detailed evidence – The Claimant could not specify which part of the bus allegedly hit him.
- Implausibility of a single impact – Given he was standing within a group, the Court found it unlikely that only he would be struck if the bus had encroached onto the pavement.
- Road layout discrepancies – The Claimant’s hand-drawn diagram of a sharp bend near the stop conflicted with images from Google Maps which showed only a gradual curve.
The judgment
With no conclusive evidence linking the bus to the alleged impact, the court ruled that the claimant had not discharged the burden of proof. The claim was dismissed in full.
Key takeaways
- CCTV can be critical in defending road traffic claims.
- Inconsistencies in evidence can weaken a case.
- The burden of proof rests with the Claimant to establish liability on the balance of probabilities.
This case reinforces the importance of robust evidence and objective records in determining liability.
Backhouse Jones has a proven track record in successfully defending personal injury claims in the transport sector. Our Regulatory and Claims and Recoveries teams understand the unique challenges operators face and provide expert legal support to protect your business. If you need advice or assistance with a claim, get in touch.