Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove the surface of a dropped kerb which was laid by a private contractor paid for by the complainant. There is inadequate evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. The Council has apologised for delays in responding to the complainant’s enquiries which I consider to be an appropriate remedy to this part of the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council has decided to remove the surface of the vehicle crossover (dropped kerb) outside his home and charge him for this. It will also charge him for resurfacing.
2. He also complains the Council delayed in responding to his enquiries.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. While visiting the road where Mr X lives for another purpose, the Council noticed the dropped kerb outside his home had been resurfaced without the Council’s knowledge.
7. Mr X confirmed he had arranged for a private contractor to resurface the dropped kerb. The Council advised that this was not permitted, and the unauthorised surface would have to be removed, and replaced. It also confirmed Mr X would have to pay for this.
8. Mr X complained. The Council accepts Mr X had the dropped kerb resurfaced three years ago. It confirms work to the highway may only be carried out by the Council through its service contractor. It would not have permitted the resurfacing completed by Mr X’s contractor.
9. The Council also confirms it can only determine the adequacy of the illegal resurfacing by removing it. It also confirms it has followed the same process when other residents have undertaken similar illegal works.
10. Mr X confirms he paid for his own contractor to resurface the dropped kerb outside his home which is part of the public highway. The Council confirms work to the highway may only be carried out by its service contractor. It has therefore decided to remove the illegally constructed surface. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
11. Mr X also complains the Council delayed in responding to his enquiries. The Council has apologised for this. I consider the apology an appropriate remedy to this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. We have seen no fault in the process the Council has followed leading to its decision to remove the surface of the dropped kerb outside Mr X’s home.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman