Summary: Mr X complains the Council has interfered with the procurement process for a contract to carry out highway works as part of his proposal for a dropped kerb. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• Provided an original excessive quote for highway work necessary to enable Mr X to install a dropped kerb outside his home
• Delayed in providing a reduce scope of work and then refused to lower the cost
• Issued misleading information to contractors which has wrongly influenced pricing
• Ignored repeated requests for information
• Excluded him from meeting with contractors to discuss work which he will be paying for as part of a proposal for a dropped kerb; and
• Refused to deal with his complaint
2. Mr X wants an investigation into why the Council has interfered in the procurement process.

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’. 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
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Mr X which includes copies of the Council’s responses to him. He had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X wants to install a dropped kerb outside his home. Due to the location of his home and the gradients and layout of the highway, a significant amount of work is needed to enable this.
7. The Council is responsible for the highways including pavements in its area. It says it provided Mr X with detailed drawings of what is required. It also told Mr X he could use either the Council’s own contractor or choose one from its list of approved businesses to do the work.
8. Mr X says the Council’s first specification was excessive and over-inflated. The Council says he was given a quote and in response to his queries this was checked by the Council’s principal engineer and confirmed as correct.
9. Mr X may disagree with the work the Council says is necessary. However, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider complaints about administrative fault. Unless such fault is present, we cannot criticise the work the Council’s specification. In this case the Council says its technician for dropped kerbs, senior engineer for footways, contract supervisor and quantity surveyor have all visited the site. It says it has also consulted with the road safety officer. As such I cannot criticise the work the Council says is necessary for Mr X to have a dropped kerb.
10. The Council says it is necessary to meet any prospective contractor on site to ensure they are fully aware of the work that will be required on the highway. As it is responsible for the highway this is an appropriate course of action which the Council is entitled to take. Mr X says he was excluded from these meetings by the Council.
11. An email to Mr X from the Council says:

“…as you intend to possibly use one of the private contractors, we wish to ensure that the extent of the work, on our highway, is fully understood before they commit to providing you with a quote. This will ensure price certainty for both them and yourself, and ensure they are aware of our expectations from the beginning. Due to social distancing advice, such site meetings, should, where possible, be a maximum of 3 people. As such, our Team, responsible for crossovers and footways, both need to be on site, as will a representative from the private contractor. This reaches that maximum number, precluding you from being on site, but we are arranging those visits to expedite them being able to provide you with a quote.”

12. In response to my enquiries Mr X confirmed that four contractors have provided quotes for the work plus the Council contractor. He says only one has met with the Council in his company. He does not know how many met the Council without him, only one has confirmed this.
13. The arrangements for the meetings on site were in line with the Government guidance at the time. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council was deliberately excluding Mr X from the meetings to deliberately interfere with the process. The quotes for the work will be/have been sent to him. If he has concerns about the work being quoted for it is open to him to query this with the contractor. He can also invite the contractor to meet him again if he has any concerns. I do not consider that the Council is at fault for meeting the contractor without Mr X, nor do I consider he has suffered a significant injustice because of this.
14. Mr X complains the Council has refused to give him copies of the information it has given to the contractors. Under access to information legislation he has a right to request any recorded information held by the Council.
15. The ICO is the body with specific powers and expertise to look into complaints about access to recorded information. It has powers which the Ombudsman does not have to require compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to refer this matter to them.
16. Turning to Mr X’s complaint that the Council refuses to consider his complaint. The Council has provided two responses to Mr X and advised him of his right to approach the Ombudsman. Further correspondence states that it has nothing further to add to its previous responses.
17. We will not usually look at the way a complaint has been considered in isolation. We consider both the handling of the complaint and the substance of the original complaint. If we consider that the original complaint is not something that we would in its own right investigate then we will not investigate the complaint about the complaints process. This is because we do not consider there can be sufficient injustice to the complainant because of any failings in the complaints process alone to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and any further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman