Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dropped kerb because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council has failed to complete the work to extend the dropped kerb outside his property, repeatedly arrived without warning to his property and took six months to complete the work after he paid for it to be done.
2. Mr Y says he was unable to get the interest on the amount he paid and the dropped kerb is not complete, which he says is causing an eye sore.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y applied for a dropped kerb outside his property to be extended and paid for the works in July 2025. The work was then completed in November 2025. Mr Y was dissatisfied with the work, as he said it was not the full length of the planned width of the dropped kerb he had applied for.
6. The Council’s complaint response said it has sprayed paint to show the length of the planned extension prior to the works to show where the dropped kerb would extend to. It said the work had been completed to this length. It said it was for Mr Y to raise the issue before the work was done if he felt the length was incorrect to allow a further extension to be considered. However, it said as the Council had not been made aware by Mr Y, any further extension would require a new application. Mr Y was unhappy about this and so came to us.
7. The complaint correspondence shows that multiple attempts were made by the Council to attend Mr Y’s property and complete the work. However, as Mr Y says he was not notified in sufficient time, he was unable to move vehicles to enable the work to be done. Consequently, the Council was unable to do the work. The Council says it made several attempts to arrange to do the work with Mr Y, but this was not possible, which led to the work not being completed until November.
8. While this may have been frustrating for Mr Y, as there was difficulty in arranging a suitable date for the works between Mr Y and the Council, there is not enough evidence of fault in the time taken to complete the work to justify investigation. It is also unlikely that we would find fault in the Council trying to complete the work on an ad-hoc basis, where such difficulties have arisen, and therefore arriving without warning to Mr Y’s property.
9. Mr Y has also complained that the Council did not complete the work agreed as the kerb extension is shorter than the distance applied for. The Council has agreed that it did not complete the work that Mr Y applied for. However, it says it completed the work which was quoted for. It says it provided lines where the dropped kerb would be to Mr Y and this work was what it quoted and charged Mr Y for. The Council said it was for Mr Y to check the lines and tell it if there was an error.
10. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
11. In this case, there was a difference in the applied for plan and the work completed, but the cost quoted for was correct for the work done. Mr Y has suffered some inconvenience and may need to make a further application if he wishes to extend the kerb to the full length he intended.
12. However, he would not be charged more than if the Council had marked out the original length he applied for or if he had made the Council aware of the shorter length of its spray markings before work started. This is not a significant loss, harm or distress which would justify our involvement. Therefore, the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman