Summary: The Council made some administrative errors, which led to delays in the construction of a vehicle crossover. The Council has refunded the complainant’s inspection fee in recognition of this, but upon recommendation by the Ombudsman considers, it has agreed to offer a small additional amount to remedy the injustice here.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr C.
2. Mr C complains mistakes by the Council led to a significant delay in the construction of a vehicle crossover (‘dropped kerb’) at his property. Although the work is now complete, and Mr C has received a refund of his inspection fee, Mr C considers he should be refunded the full amount he paid for the work.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr C’s complaints to the Council, and its responses.
5. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr C applied for permission to construct a vehicle crossover at his property on 21 February 2019.
7. On 28 March, a Council officer visited the site to carry out a survey, then compiled a quote for the work and emailed it Mr C on the same day. Mr C responded that the size of the proposed crossover was excessive and too expensive, so the Council officer returned to the site to draw-up a revised design and provide a new quote. Mr C subsequently paid the quote of £2456 in full on 30 June.
8. Under the Council’s policy, work to create a crossover should be completed within 12 weeks of payment. This means Mr C’s crossover should have been finished by the end of September.
9. During the officer’s second visit, Mr C had explained there were broadband cables buried in the area where work was due to take place. The Council officer indicated this would not be a problem, as the cables could be sunk lower to accommodate the work.
10. On 14 October, Mr C complained to the Council. He said the work had still not been completed, despite having been paid for in June. Mr C said contractors had arrived (without prior warning) the previous week, but had been unable to start work because they did not know where the cables were. Mr C said he had then been told he would need to pay for the cables to be moved.
11. The Council held a meeting with Mr C on 30 October, then provided a response to his complaint on 1 November. It upheld his complaint on the basis the Council officer had failed to notify the relevant broadband supplier when Mr C informed him of the cables, which had led to the subsequent delays. The Council said, had it not been for this, the work would have been completed within its published timescale of 12 weeks from receipt of payment.
12. The Council said it had explained to Mr C, during the meeting, it was reliant on the broadband supplier being able to attend before it could commence work. This could mean the work might not be completed until December or January. Therefore, as a remedy, it said it would refund the £124.90 inspection fee Mr C had paid.
13. Mr C complained to the Ombudsman on 21 February. He said the work had still not been completed, and said he wished for a full refund on top of completion of the work. Mr C also complained he had not received the refunded inspection fee. We referred Mr C back to the Council, as he had not completed the Council’s complaint process.
14. The Council provided a second complaint response on 4 March. It said the work had been delayed again because of the discovery of another cable, which could not immediately be identified. After investigation, it had been identified as belonging to a different broadband provider, who confirmed the cable was redundant and severed it.
15. The Council apologised again for the delay in the work, and said it would now prioritise it for week commencing 23 March.
16. The Council also acknowledged it had not processed the refund of the inspection fee, and said it would do so now. However, it declined to offer him a further remedy.
17. On 7 April, Mr C confirmed to the Ombudsman the work had been completed on 23/24 March, and he had now received the promised refund.

Back to top

Analysis

18. According to the Council’s policy, it will complete construction of an approved vehicle crossover within 12 weeks of receiving full payment. In this case, Mr C paid on 30 June (though the Council says it received it on 1 July), meaning the work should have been completed in September. Instead, the work was completed in late March, some six months after it should have been.
19. The Council has accepted its officer should have contacted the first broadband supplier when Mr C told him about the cables, but did not. This, in turn, meant a road closure permit, which it needed to safely do the work, expired, and it became necessary to obtain a new permit. As the Council recognises, this is fault.
20. It appears progress of the work on Mr C’s crossover was not entirely in the Council’s hands, as it was reliant on the availability of staff from the two broadband suppliers. However, I note the Council considers the work would have been completed in time, had the officer been proactive about notifying the first broadband provider. I am therefore satisfied the Council’s fault caused Mr C an injustice, in delaying the completion of his crossover.
21. By way of remedy, the Council has now refunded to Mr C the inspection fee of £124.90. To remedy a complainant’s time and trouble, the Ombudsman will typically recommend a payment of between £100 and £300. Given the significant delay in completing the work, compounded by the delay in paying the offered remedy, I consider £200 would be a more appropriate remedy here. The Council should offer Mr C the difference between this and what it has already paid him.
22. I do not, however, consider it would be appropriate for the Council to refund Mr C the entire fee of nearly £2500. This was payment for work which has now been completed, and which Mr C has the benefit of. There are no grounds to expect the Council to refund this, even accepting the delay in completion.
23. I note Mr C also complains he was told he would need to pay for cables to be moved on Council property. His correspondence, and the Council’s responses, do not make clear whether he was ultimately charged for this.
24. But, regardless, I would not consider this fault. As I understand it, where the construction of a crossover requires secondary works (for example, the relocation of a streetlight), it is normal for the applicant to be charged for this. This is because it is solely for the benefit of the applicant, not that of the wider public.
25. After raising his complaint with the Ombudsman, Mr C also complained he was required to pay for a road closure permit, despite the fact the work did not actually prevent cars passing; and the Council had offered to sweep and litter pick a path by his property as a goodwill gesture after his original complaint, but did not.
26. The issue about the road closure permit is a new complaint, which must first be made to the Council. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this matter until Mr C has done so.
27. And the remedy set out in the Council’s complaints correspondence is only for the refund of the inspection fee. I see no reference to sweeping or picking litter. It may be this was discussed informally with Mr C, but I do not have evidence to say the Council offered an additional remedy which it then did not complete.
28. In either case, I do not consider the failure to sweep a path represents a significant personal injustice to Mr C. This is not a remedy I would independently recommend for a complaint of this category. For this reason, I do not consider it proportionate to continue my investigation solely to resolve this point.

Agreed action

29. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to offer Mr C £75.10, to provide a total remedy of £200 for the time and trouble he has been to.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman