Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s policy on which contractors can do ‘dropped kerb’ works causes higher costs to applicants. The Council has not caused Mr X injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s policy on dropped kerbs forces an applicant to use the Council’s chosen contractor for the works which is more costly. Mr X says he would like to apply for a dropped kerb in the future. He wants the Council to change its policy so people can use their own contractor.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and have discussed the complaint with him by telephone.

Back to top

My assessment

4. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
5. The Ombudsman investigates fault causing injustice. The Council has not caused Mr X an injustice because he has not applied for a dropped kerb. Mr X tells me that he “probably will apply” for one in the future but that is uncertain.
6. If the Council’s policy complies with the law and has been properly adopted there is not likely administrative fault in its approach given the responsibilities of a highway authority to maintain the highway. Mr X could pursue the matter with his local councillor.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman