Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about delay by the Council improving the vehicle crossover which serves his home. This is because Mr C has not suffered a serious injustice which would justify an investigation or the pursuit of a financial remedy by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr C, complains that the Council took too long to carry out works to the vehicle crossover which serves his property. Mr C paid the Council to construct a new access ramp because he could not use the crossover which was too steep for modern cars. Mr C says the agreement he signed said the work would take up to 8 weeks, but the Council took over 18 weeks to complete the work. Mr C says he was caused distress and inconvenience by not being able to park on his drive. Mr C would like the Council to pay him compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr C.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council accepts it delayed undertaking the work Mr C paid for. The Council says unplanned long term staff absences and a change of contract with its supplier resulted in delays to this service.
6. The Council apologised for not telling Mr C as soon as it became aware there would be a delay and for not providing a revised estimate for completion. The Council apologised to Mr C for the delay but did not agree to his request for compensation.
7. The Council’s apology was a suitable response from the Council.
8. Mr C would like the Council to pay him compensation for the distress and inconvenience he suffered.
9. We have limited resources and must focus our investigations on complaints of serious injustice. The delay would have inconvenienced Mr C. But, Mr C could not use his driveway before the work started so he would have been used to parking his car on the road. The delay prolonged this arrangement until the work was completed and Mr C could use his driveway. But, I find Mr C was not caused a serious injustice which would justify an investigation or the pursuit of a financial remedy by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because he has not suffered a serious injustice which would justify an investigation or the pursuit of a financial remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman