Summary: Mr B complains that the Council has refused to replace the raised eastern kerbstone on his vehicle crossover with a sloped kerbstone so as to prevent damage to his tyres. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the Council’s decision that a raised kerbstone is necessary to provide protection to a telecom box.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council has failed to rectify a faulty crossover installation at his property. He considers that the eastern kerbstone is not fitted properly and will damage his car tyres.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr B’s written complaint and spoken with him. I have considered the Council’s response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries. I have also sent Mr B and the Council a draft decision and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B’s home is in a fairly narrow street with parking bays on each side, except where there are vehicular crossovers, where there are single yellow lines.
5. To allow him to park in front of his house, Mr B applied and paid for a crossover in June 2017. Since a 3.6 metre crossover would affect parking bays, Mr B also had to submit a fee for parking consultation.
6. The Council also determined that the crossover would affect a telecom company street box, so Mr B was advised to contact the company. Mr B did not hear back from the telecom company.
7. The Council carried out a further inspection and re-marked the site for a 3.0 metre crossover to avoid the telecom box. The parking consultation also went ahead.
8. In March 2018, the Council’s Parking Services Department granted its final approval and added the costs to the overall quotation.
9. Mr B made the final payment in April 2018, and the hardstanding in his front garden was completed in June 2018. The Council raised a work order with the contractors and was awaiting the date for construction. Mr B then complained about delay carrying out the works and a lack of communication by officers.
10. In response, the Council set a date to install the crossover and a provided a contact name and number. After the crossover was then installed, Mr B made a further complaint that the kerbstones at the edges of the crossover were too high and would damage his tyres.
11. Officers from the Council’s Highways Department explained that due to the location of the telecom box, they could not install sloped kerbstones unless Mr B secured the telecom company’s approval to move the box.
12. The Council agreed to reduce the crossover size without charge. However, Mr B requested a refund of £638, 1/3 of the crossover charge. He also requested that the crossover be kept at 3.6 metres, but the corner kerbstones be replaced with sloped kerbstones.
13. The Council refunded 1/3 of Mr B’s fees in November 2018. It agreed to install a sloped kerbstone on the western side of the crossover, but explained that it could not do so on the eastern side due to the telecom box.
14. The work was undertaken in January 2019, and Mr B said he would complain to the Ombudsman. He was unhappy that the eastern kerbstone was not sloped and was higher than before. The Council’s Complaints Officer contacted the Highways Department to ask if it would install a sloped kerbstone on the eastern side of the crossover, but it declined to do so because of the position of the telecom box.

My assessment

15. Mr B says it is easier for him to use the crossover by approaching from the east, but it is difficult to access the front of his property without his tyres hitting the eastern kerbstone which is now higher than before. He thinks that the Council is unreasonable in refusing to install a sloped eastern kerbstone when there is a small risk of damage to the telecom box, but a high risk of damage to his car.
16. Under the Council’s policy, a crossover will not generally be permitted close to existing street furniture:

‘The crossover should be located so that it does not affect existing street furniture e.g. lamp column, traffic sign, trees etc. Normally a minimum distance of 1.2 metres will be required between a proposed crossover and any existing street furniture.’

17. In this case, the Council has agreed to allow a 3.6 metre crossover, which is closer to the telecom box than would be usual under its policy, rather than require the crossover to be reduced to 3.0 metres to maintain a greater separation distance from the telecom box.
18. However, given the proximity of the eastern side of the crossover to the telecom box, the Council’s Engineer considers that a raised corner kerb is necessary to stop vehicles passing too close to the telecom box. The Council has also confirmed that the kerbstone installed meets the applicable standard.
19. I see no fault here. The kerbstone meets the applicable standards, and it is for the Council to determine whether a raised kerbstone is necessary to protect the telecom box.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have closed my investigation into Mr B’s complaint because I have found no fault in the way Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman