Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his application for a second dropped kerb. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council. We do not propose to investigate Mr X’s complaint about the state of the pavement outside his house as it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision not to grant him permission for a second dropped kerb at his property and about the state of the paving stones outside his house. He says this has caused him stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘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 believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and discussed the case with him by telephone.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X would like a second dropped kerb on the road outside his property to provide an in/out driveway. The Council’s policy says it will not normally grant permission for this unless there are exceptional circumstances. Mr X applied for permission anyway but the Council refused his application. Mr X complained about the decision and was not happy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. Another officer has now assessed his application but reached the same conclusion and Mr X suggests he has been victimised. He believes the decision to refuse permission for a second dropped kerb is wrong. He is also unhappy the Council will not allow him to repair the pavement outside his house.
6. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Mr X is aware his application went against council policy and it was therefore likely it would be refused. The Council has considered Mr X’s reasons for wanting a second dropped kerb in deciding whether to grant permission but it found there were no good reasons to do so in his case. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make and it is unlikely we would find fault in the way it was reached.
7. Councils will not normally allow third parties to undertake repairs to the highway themselves and the Council is under no obligation to agree to such an arrangement in this case. If Mr X believes the pavement, as part of the public highway, is out of repair it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court. Section 56 of the Highways Act 1980 provides a specific remedy for this issue and the courts are better placed to deal with the issue.
8. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council has dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s application for a dropped kerb and if he is concerned about the state of the pavement it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman