Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to his reports of cars blocking dropped kerbs on public pathways. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered and responded to his concerns. There is also not enough injustice to Mr X to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s response to cars blocking dropped kerbs on public pathways. He complains the Council have also failed to consider his request for them to put in measures to prevent cars parking there.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement,

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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)

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. Mr X complained to the Council about cars parking across dropped kerbs on public footpaths near his home. He was concerned about the impact this has on pedestrians and other members of the public, particularly those with mobility difficulties, and considered it a potential safety risk. Mr X said the Council failed to properly investigate the issue and that its response was inadequate.
7. The Council at first wrongly advised Mr X that it could not take enforcement action against cars blocking dropped kerbs. It later recognised this error and apologised for the misinformation. The Council also explained the action it had taken in response to Mr X’s concerns. Following a site visit, it decided that obstruction of the dropped kerb was intermittent and advised that enforcement action would be considered where the dropped kerb was fully obstructed. As the Council has already apologised for the misinformation and there is not enough evidence of further fault in the way it considered and responded to Mr X’s concerns, we will not investigate this further.
8. Mr X complains the Council did not reasonably consider his request for measures to prevent cars parking across the dropped kerb. The Council explained it had carefully considered the request but decided that, given the location, the cost of installing and maintaining such measures would be disproportionate to the benefit provided to the wider community. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.
9. While I understand the situation is frustrating for Mr X, there is not enough evidence of continuing personal injustice. Also, as the dropped kerbs are not always blocked, there is not enough public interest to warrant further investigation in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and not enough ongoing injustice to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman