Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s advice to Mr X about a highway maintenance matter. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, reimburse his costs and pay him £100 for his avoidable trouble and inconvenience. These actions provide a suitable remedy for the complaint and it is unlikely investigation would achieve significantly more for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly told him to hire a contractor to apply for permission for a vehicle crossing licence, when asking for permission to repair the dropped kerb serving his property. He also says the Council agreed to refund his costs during a site visit but failed to do so.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980, the Council has a duty to maintain highways maintainable at the public expense. The definition of a highway includes the pavement and any dropped kerbs for which the Council, as local highway authority, is responsible.
6. Mr X and his neighbour have existing dropped kerbs connecting their driveways to the public highway. The surface of their dropped kerbs had deteriorated over a period of years following works by utility companies, and they were unaware of the Council’s duty to maintain them. They contacted the Council to ask if they needed permission to resurface the dropped kerbs, and asking for advice and any funding which may be available to help with the cost.
7. The Council responded to Mr X’s request explaining he would need to employ a suitably qualified contractor to apply for a vehicle crossing licence. Mr X did this, and the contractor applied to the Council for permission as directed.
8. The Council carried out a site visit to Mr X’s property, at which point it accepted it was responsible for repairs and agreed to carry out the work itself. Mr X says the Council agreed to fully refund his costs for making the application during the visit, however it did not refund the full amount. It also made the partial refund to Mr X’s contractor, rather than to Mr X directly, and his contractor has kept the refund as payment towards his fees.
9. I am satisfied the Council’s advice to Mr X was incorrect and that Mr X relied on this, as he was entitled to do. This resulted in a direct cost to Mr X of £308, which he paid to the contractor to make the application. I have therefore asked the Council to take action to remedy the complaint and, to its credit, it has agreed to my proposal.

Back to top

Agreed action

10. The Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X for its incorrect advice.
• Pay Mr X £308 to reimburse him for the charges paid to the contractor as a result of the incorrect advice.
• Pay Mr X £100 for his trouble and inconvenience in finding and instructing a contractor when this was not necessary.
11. The Council will carry out these agreed actions within one month of the date of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s agreed actions provide a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by its actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman