Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about events related to a kerb repair. This is mainly because the matters complained of have not caused Mr X a significant enough injustice for us to investigate or ask the Council for a remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council delaying completing a road repair, inappropriate comments by the Council and about the Council’s complaint-handling. Mr X said this caused worry about the safety of the road and the Council’s comments caused upset.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy email correspondence from the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Where Mr X parks on the road, the kerb consists of bricks laid sideways into the edge of the road. In late April 2023 Mr X complained to the Council that it had not repaired some loose bricks. Although Mr X chased the matter, and although the Council said on 10 July it would do the work within 24 hours, it did not complete the repair until early September. Meanwhile, Mr X complained to us in mid-August when the repair was still outstanding.
7. While the bricks were loose they were liable to fall into the road. Mr X says this caused worry with loose bricks around the car, particularly as the area could be considered dangerous.
8. I appreciate Mr X worried about the loose bricks, although no damage appears to have resulted and nobody appears to have used the bricks dangerously while they were loose. I also appreciate Mr X went to some trouble pursuing with the Council a matter residents might have expected the Council to resolve more quickly. However, in the circumstances, I do not consider the worry and effort related to a kerb repair amount to significant enough injustice to to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating the complaint or seeking further remedy. I also note Mr X’s complaint to us was partly motivated by wanting the Council to do the repair. That has now happened, so we cannot achieve more on that point.
9. The Council officer who took Mr X’s complaint by telephone sent an internal message with a note of the complaint. That message referred to Mr X as a ‘gent.’ Mr X says that was misgendering and the Council had not asked about gender when noting the complaint. The Council’s use of this word seems arguably informal and unnecessary. However, as explained above, I must consider whether any injustice to Mr X is significant enough for us to investigate. I am mindful that this was a single internal message whose main purpose was to communicate details of the complaint. I am also mindful that, Mr X, when complaining to the Ombudsman, chose the title ‘Mr.’ While using the word ‘gent’ might have caused Mr X some upset, in all the circumstances, I do not consider it would reasonably amount to a significant enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to pursuing this part of the complaint.
10. The same internal Council message said Mr X had been ‘very rude’ on the telephone. Mr X disputes that. I acknowledge Mr X’s dissatisfaction. However, I do not consider this single comment causes a significant enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman taking further action.
11. Mr X also complains about the Council’s complaint-handling. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
12. Mr X’s complaint to us stated Mr X wanted the Council to do the repair, apologise and make a payment. The repair has since been done, so we cannot achieve more on that. While I recognise Mr X’s dissatisfaction, it would be disproportionate in the circumstances to seek further remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the substantive matters complained of have not caused a significant enough injustice, individually or together, for us to investigate. As we are not investigating the substantive points of complaint, it would be disproportionate for us to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman