Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council has refused to install a disabled ramp outside her property or improve the condition of a footpath nearby her property. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council refused to install a disabled ramp outside her property or improve the condition of a public footpath she needs to use to access her garage which is positioned just outside the boundary of her property.
2. Miss X says that as a result, she has been caused anxiety because she is afraid her wheelchair will tip over.
3. She wants the Council to install a ramp or dropped kerb and level the footpath.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Following a site visit, the Council informed Miss X that it would not install a dropped kerb because her request did not meet the requirements of its policy. In its initial response it said this was because the dropped kerb would only be used by a few people and not the wider population which went against its policy.
8. Councils are entitled to have policies and procedures to determine who qualifies for particular services. However, we expect them to also consider exercising discretion or to signpost to other council services where appropriate.
9. In this case, Miss X had said she required a dropped kerb because she felt her wheelchair was in danger of tipping over which meant she could not safely access her mobility vehicle.
10. There was no evidence the Council had considered Miss X’s particular concerns when made its original decision. However, in response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council explained it had sought advice on whether the work would qualify for a disabled facilities grant from its Housing Adaptations and Adult Social Care Departments and both had said it would not. In particular, Adult Social Care said Miss X had ongoing Occupational Therapist (OT) involvement and it would expect any such request to come from them as part of their assessment. This had not happened. The Council said it did not refer to this in its letter to Miss X because it felt it was not useful to signpost her to a service area which had already said it would not help her.
11. In relation to work to the footpath, the Council explained that significant work would be required to level the footpath which it had considered but decided was not good use of public funds to carry out. Again, Miss X’s OT had not raised this as a particular issue.
12. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decisions on both of Miss X’s requests for work to be carried out. Therefore, we will not investigate these matters further.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman