Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a price increase for dropped kerbs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains that the cost of a dropped kerb has increased. He says the Council was wrong to say there had not been a price increase for four years and he is unhappy he cannot pay in instalments.

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 an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I looked at information on the Council’s website and considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Dropped kerb

4. The Council’s website explains there is an application fee of £95 and an administration fee of £273. The total cost is usually between £1400 and £3500 but it can be more.

What happened

5. Mr X complained to the Council about an increase in the cost of a dropped kerb. He said his neighbour paid £900 in 2016 but his quote is for £1283. He says the dropped kerbs are the same width and the increase cannot be justified. He also complained that the Council was wrong to say there had not been an increase for four years because the administration fee in 2016 and 2017 was £230, rising to £244 in 2018, and is now £273.
6. In reply to his complaint the Council explained that it had awarded a new contract in late 2018 and this had additional costs due to requirements that had not been part of the previous contract. For example, there are new requirements relating to notification of works on the highway and traffic notifications. There is a new requirement to visit the applicant to ensure they are happy with the proposed work and a requirement to complete remedial work within a set period of time. The Council explained that other costs are based on actual costs incurred and it does not make a profit. The fees are only to cover the costs of providing the service.

Assessment

7. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council has explained why the fees have increased, particularly since 2018, and explained the fees only cover the costs of providing the service. I appreciate Mr X feels the fees are too high but it is not the role of the Ombudsman to tell the Council how much to charge. Mr X would also like to pay by instalment and says that is not offered by the Council. However, it is for the Council to decide how people must pay and whether to offer instalments. Mr X could lobby his local councillors if he thinks the policy should be changed.
8. Mr X says he was wrongly told there had not been an increase for four years. However, this has not caused an injustice to Mr X because he has been quoted the price that applied at the time of the application. Even if the Council had told him the fees had increased, it would not have altered his quote.
9. Mr X says that two other neighbours, with the same size dropped kerb, paid more in 2017 and 2018 than the first neighbour in 2016. He wants to know why these two neighbours paid more than the neighbour in 2016. I appreciate Mr X would like more information about the price paid by each neighbour, but it was for each neighbour to accept or reject their quotes and the amount paid by each neighbour does not affect Mr X. And, as I have said above, the price quoted to Mr X is not affected by the amount paid by his neighbours.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman