Summary: Miss X complains the Council charged too much for constructing a dropped kerb at her home and took too long to carry out the work. We have found the Council at fault for the delay in providing a quote to Miss X, which caused an injustice. We have found fault with the Council failing to tell Miss X the works would take longer than usual to complete, although this did not cause Miss X an injustice. We did not find fault with how the Council charged for the work.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the service the Council provided when it constructed a dropped kerb leading to her property. Miss X says:
• there was an unreasonable delay in carrying out the work; and
• the Council provided only one quotation for the cost of the work, which was excessive.
2. Miss X says the delays caused frustration and the costs she incurred are unreasonable. She is seeking a partial refund.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her.
6. I considered information the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
7. Both Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant guidance, legislation, and policies

The Highways Act 1980

8. Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 sets out the law on vehicle crossings being built over footways, pavements and verges. Dropped kerbs are vehicle crossings in this context.
9. The law says that when somebody applies for a vehicle crossing, the local authority can:
• accept the application;
• reject the application; or
• propose amendments to the application.
10. If the local authority approves the application, it should provide a quote to carry out the works. Once the parties agree a quote, the local authority should carry out the works “as soon as practicable”. This means as quickly as possible, considering the individual circumstances of the case.

Road classification

11. All UK roads, excluding motorways, fall into one of four categories;
• “A” roads;
• “B” roads;
• “classified unnumbered” roads; and
• “unclassified” roads.
12. “Classified” roads are smaller roads intended to connect “unclassified” roads to “A” and “B” roads. These roads often link a village or housing estate to the rest of the road network. Miss X’s property is situated on a “classified” road.

The Council’s policy

13. The Council’s policy on dropped kerb applications is available on its website. It sets out details about how to apply, possible costs, and likely timescales. The page has been updated during this investigation, but the following information was correct at the time Miss X applied for the dropped kerb.
14. The Council charged a £95 non-refundable application fee, which includes the cost of an inspection. Typical costs to install a dropped kerb ranged between £1400 and £3500. This included a standard administration fee of £273, materials, and labour. Installation costs could exceed £6000 where added works or labour were required. Added works are those moving utilities, trees, or street furniture.
15. In terms of timescales, the information on the website said:
• the Council would inspect once an application fee was paid;
• after inspection, the Council would usually provide a quote within 20 working days, but this could be longer where there were added works;
• quotes were valid for six months; and
• installation of a dropped kerb usually happened within 12 weeks of full payment for an accepted quote. Non-standard works would take longer, but the Council would advise of this when providing a quote.

Back to top

What I found

Background

16. Miss X, through a representative, applied for a dropped kerb in March 2020. The Council’s contractors completed the works in February 2021. Shortly after, Miss X complained to the Council, saying:
• the cost of the work was excessive, given it had taken a single day to complete, using standard materials;
• the Council had only provided one quote for the works, instead of the suggested three; and
• it had been more than a year from Ms X submitting the application to the works being carried out.
17. Miss X asked for a partial refund of the costs incurred.
18. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint. In its response, the Council:
• provided an itemised breakdown of the costs involved in the work.
• said that Miss X lived on a “classified” road. Because of this, it had been necessary to get planning permission, temporary traffic management measures, and a quotation from the contractor, all of which caused delay.
• said it had provided only one quotation, as the contractor was on the Council’s works framework.
• confirmed the cost of the crossing was correct and Miss X was not entitled to a partial refund.
19. The Council issued its final response in August 2021. In December 2021, Miss X referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. Miss X sought a partial refund on the cost of the work, citing excessive costs and delay.

Delay in providing a quote

20. As outlined above, Miss X, via her representative, submitted her application for a dropped kerb in March 2020. Miss X had also submitted a planning application, as the works needed planning permission. The Council approved the planning application in April 2020, subject to a condition that the local transport authority be consulted.
21. The local transport authority suggested amendments to the proposal in May 2020, due to the possible impact the works would have on a nearby bus stop. Miss X agreed to these amendments. In June 2020, Miss X’s representative asked the Council to move onto the next stage of the process. The Council said it would speak with the local transport authority and would provide an update when it could.
22. In August 2020, Miss X’s representative chased for an update, complaining about the lack of progress. The Council advised it was still in talks with the local transport authority and the lead officer was on holiday until later in the month. It said it would update as soon as possible.
23. The Council’s internal records show it inspected the site in August 2020 and sought a quote for the works from the contractor in the same month. The contractors returned a quote at the start of September 2020. This quote was sent to Miss X at the end of October 2020.
24. It is clear the Council did not send Miss X or her representative the quote within 20 working days, in accordance with the timescales outlined in paragraph 15. Miss X’s representative provided notice to the Council of the approved planning application in June 2020; the Council did not send the quote until the end of October 2020, approximately four months later.
25. In its response to my enquiries, the Council said the application form did not have Miss X’s details on it, as her representative’s details were put down instead. It said concerns about the conflicting personal details provided on the application form contributed to delays in its response. It also said consulting with the local transport authority and the need for planning permission were factors in the overall time taken.
26. I note the Council’s explanation, but do not consider this accounts for all the delay Miss X experienced. This is because:
• I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council raised concerns about conflicting personal details when it received the application. It also did not raise any concerns when it responded to Miss X’s representative about delays in June and August 2020.
• Miss X had already secured planning permission, and received comments from the local transport authority, by the end of May 2020. Although the Council suggests it was consulting with the local transport authority from June until August 2020, I have seen no evidence of this.
27. Additionally, the Council’s records suggest the contractors provided their quote to the Council at the beginning of September 2020. The Council did not send it to Miss X until the end of October 2020. This appears to be an avoidable delay of approximately two months, with the Council providing no update to Miss X or her representative in this time.
28. I therefore believe there were avoidable delays in providing a quote for the works to Miss X. I consider this was fault, which caused Miss X unnecessary frustration.

Delay in carrying out the work

29. The Council told me the application was non-standard. This is because of the location of the property on a “classified” road and the type of work required. The Council said the time limit for the works would have been 12 weeks or more from when the quoted cost was fully paid.
30. As outlined in paragraph 15, the Council’s policy said it would tell applicants at the quotation stage if it believed it would not complete the works within 12 weeks. There is no evidence the Council told Miss X it thought the works would take more than 12 weeks when it provided her with the quote. This is fault.
31. However, I do not consider this fault caused Miss X an injustice. I am unclear when exactly Miss X paid for the work; however, the records I have seen show the Council completed the works in February 2021, about 16 weeks after the Council sent the quote to Miss X. Allowing time for the festive period, the overall time taken for the work was not excessive. I have seen no suggestion Miss X queried any delay after paying for the works, or that any specific difficulty arose because of the time taken to complete the work.

Cost of work

32. Miss X said the cost of the work was too high, considering the time it took and the materials used. She also said the Council provided only one quote, when it should have provided three.
33. The Ombudsman cannot decide whether the overall cost of the work represents good value for money. I can only consider whether there were faults in how the Council conducted the process and, if there were, whether these faults affected what happened.
34. The Council’s policy said it would provide applicants with a quote for the works after an inspection. This is what it did. I have not identified any requirement for the Council to provide three quotes, as Miss X has suggested.
35. The Council provided an itemised breakdown of the costs incurred to Miss X in its response to her complaint. I have seen evidence the contractor provided a quote of £4972.50 to the Council. The Council’s quote to Miss X was £5245.50, the difference being the Council’s £273 administration fee. The quote provided fell within the price range specified on the Council’s website at the time.
36. The cost of the work did not increase from the quote the Council gave to Miss X. Miss X agreed to the quote when paying for it, and I have not seen any suggestion Miss X raised concerns about the cost at the time.
37. The Council produced a quote for the work in accordance with its policy and the requirements of the relevant legislation. I have not therefore identified any fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
• provide a written apology to Miss X for the time taken to provide a quote for the works and the frustration this caused.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault by the Council, causing an injustice to Miss X. I have made recommendations to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman