Would like to contribute with a couple points to ponder (having been integral to the creation of Neatstreets a couple of years ago i've been through the pain).
For a successful system, the work effort is largely going to be related to the daily support of issues that arise from public reports - i.e unrelated to the technology. It's usually down to council process / privacy / boundary issues etc. All of which need to be treated on a per issue basis, applying the same logic for all councils is generally not possible, although am hopeful things will standardise over time.
So taking a long term view, getting a system up and running i would say is 25% of the work (especially given the options for inheriting a code base), the question of who is going to volunteer to do the other 75% of daily triaging and specific problem solving and report chasing is the question you really should answer before planning development - or at the latest going live.
The beauty of SnapSendSolve is that there is no triaging overhead because there's no intermediary platform, but then people will argue that exposing all issues in one place to the scrutiny of public is main purpose or power of the system.
Myself and another colleague went to great lengths to attempt to convince the management to open source neatstreets when we were working there. Obviously we didn't succeed, but looking back i no longer see the openness of the neatstreets source code as being nearly as important as the openness and accessibility of the data.
Ideally all councils should chip in to fund the ongoing running costs of whatever system wins out, and the public should win by having a single reliable service with full access to all data.
Please keep the group updated with how you travel with this, i may be able to chip in from time to time.
Regards
Rich
p.s i would try out both these systems for your bus stop issue, even if you decide to press on with a fixmystreet solution.