Summary: We found no fault in how the Council dealt with X’s application for a dropped kerb.

The complaint

1. Mr X and Mrs X (‘X’) said the Council failed to properly deal with their application for a dropped kerb. This led to them paying significant unexpected costs for works to a highway tree and a third party’s equipment. X wanted the Council to accept responsibility for the added tree and equipment costs and refund them £1,434.06.

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’. 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)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I:

• considered X’s written complaint and supporting papers;
• talked to Mr X about the complaint;
• asked for and considered the Council’s comments and supporting papers about the complaint;
• shared the Council’s response to the complaint with X; and
• shared a draft of this statement with X and the Council and considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and the Council’s policy

5. Councils have powers to construct vehicle crossings, often called ‘dropped kerbs’, allowing people to drive across a lowered and strengthened pavement to park on their driveway. Utility companies, such as water, gas, electricity, and internet providers, often have cables, pipes and other equipment on and under roads and pavements. A dropped kerb may affect equipment owned by utility companies.
6. The Council publishes its policy and practice for providing dropped kerbs on its website. It says people should have a driveway at least 4.75 metres long that “…must be in place before a dropped kerb can be constructed”. And the typical cost of a dropped kerb is between £1,400 to £3,500. But works to trees or needed by utility companies may increase costs to £6,000 or more. The Council advises people not to start constructing a hardstanding/driveway but to await a quote where an inspection identifies utility company equipment.
7. The Council’s website includes a dropped kerb application form. The form asks people to confirm they have read and understood all the dropped kerb information on the website and understand the conditions needed for approval of an application. There is a £95 application fee, which covers a Council site visit. The Council aims to quote for the dropped kerb within 20 working days of its site visit but needs longer for cases affecting trees or utility company equipment. Applicants have six months to accept the quote, which will include any tree and utility company costs, and pay for the dropped kerb. The Council, and any affected utility company, will carry out the works and construct the dropped kerb after receiving payment.

What happened

8. X said they contacted the Council about having a dropped kerb outside their home and pointed out there was a tree in the grass verge near their boundary. X said the Council told them they needed to install a driveway before it would quote for or carry out dropped kerb works. X said the Council also told them it would sort out any issues with the tree.
9. X said they checked the Council’s website and understood a dropped kerb would cost about £1,000 to £1,500. X applied for a dropped kerb using the Council’s online application form. X also contacted the Council when sending their application. The Council’s records showed X said they knew a driveway had to be 4.75 metres long and they could achieve this by moving a retaining wall. The Council’s records also showed X saying their contractor would move the wall and ensure their driveway measured at least 4.75 metres.
10. A Council officer inspected the site a few days later, noting the nearby tree and finding works to provide a driveway had started at X’s home. The Council found 3.5 metres available at the front of X’s home for a driveway. It therefore sent X an “insufficient frontage” email refusing their application as it did not comply with the requirement to have a 4.75 metre driveway. X said they contacted the Council to explain that, when complete, their driveway would be 4.75 metres.
11. A few days later, the Council carried out further visits, including by a tree officer. The Council said it could not remeasure the area because materials for the driveway were obstructing the site. It therefore told X it could not now take measurements and asked them to get in touch once the area was clear. The Council said it also identified utility company equipment affected by the proposed dropped kerb.
12. The Council made a third visit about five weeks later and recorded site measurements as ‘present and correct’. The Council then contacted X and told them it was asking a utility company to provide a quote for works affecting its equipment, which could take about 18 weeks.
13. Four months later, the utility company asked for payment of a survey fee before it would provide a detailed costs estimate for work to its equipment. The Council quickly asked X for the fee, which they later paid. The Council told X it might take six weeks for the utility company to provide detailed costs for its works.
14. About seven weeks later, the utility company gave the Council a quote for works to its equipment. The next day the Council contacted X sending a quote for £3,681.06, which included utility company costs of £1,270.88 and tree works of £163.18.
15. X complained saying they had had to construct their driveway, their tree questions went unanswered, and they were unaware of the utility company equipment. The Council said it had followed the correct procedure and, while X’s application had taken a long time, it could not influence the actions of the utility company. X, dissatisfied with the Council’s response, brought their complaint to the Ombudsman. X also paid the Council’s quote, and the Council has now constructed a dropped kerb next to X’s home.

Consideration

16. X said the Council told them they had to construct their driveway before it would give them a quote for, or construct, a dropped kerb at their home. This was not consistent with the Council’s published policy and practice, which does not need a driveway to be in place before providing a quote. The Council said giving six months to accept quotes ensured people had time to install a driveway before paying for a dropped kerb. Such an approach was understandable as people need to know how much both a driveway and dropped kerb would cost before committing to any payments.
17. The Council’s published information also said a driveway must be 4.75 metres long. It seems X knew a retaining wall in their front garden meant 4.75 metres was not available for a driveway. It may be that, in any telephone calls with the Council, it told X it would reject an application where a driveway at least 4.75 metres long could not be provided. And the Council did subsequently reject X’s application on that ground.
18. X were effectively faced with having to move their retaining wall to show they could meet the 4.75 metre rule. The evidence showed X had committed to moving their wall, and constructing a driveway, when they applied for a dropped kerb as the Council found works in progress when visiting three days later.
19. It may be that a misunderstanding arose in any telephone calls between X and the Council about showing space for and physically providing a 4.75 metres driveway. However, I saw no objective and contemporaneous information to evidence the Council told X to construct their driveway before applying for a dropped kerb. And given X’s dropped kerb application form confirmed they had read and understood the website information, I could not find fault here by the Council.
20. X also raised the cost of their dropped kerb, which they expected to be between £1,000 and £1,500 but was over £3,600. The Council confirmed that when X made their application, its website gave the typical cost of a dropped kerb as between £1,400 and £3,500. When X received a dropped kerb quote it exceeded the published maximum ‘typical’ cost. However, the quote included works to both a nearby tree and a utility company’s equipment, which the Council’s published information advised could lead to quotes of over £6,000. The quote was for a significant sum that X did not expect. However, the quote was in line with the cost information published on the Council’s website, which information X confirmed they had read and understood.
21. It took about eight months for the Council to provide a quote, but the evidence does not show the time taken arose from avoidable delay by the Council. Rather, after the Council’s third visit, when it found the 4.75 metres requirement had been met, it was largely awaiting information from the utility company about its equipment costs. And if a quote could have been provided more quickly, it would still have come after X had committed to and started works to their retaining wall, and construction of a driveway. I therefore found no fault in how the Council acted in producing the quote.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I completed my investigation finding no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman