Summary: Mr X complained about the replacement vehicle crossover the Council installed across the driveway of his home. He said the new crossover is narrower, with higher edges. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the replacement vehicle crossover the Council installed across the driveway of his home. He said the new crossover is 32 inches narrower than the old one, with higher edge stones, making it difficult to manoeuvre in and out of his driveway. He also said the Council used larger kerb stones for the new crossover and this has caused damage to the tyres of his vehicles.
2. Mr X is unhappy the Council installed wider vehicle crossovers in front of some neighbouring houses on his street. Some of the new crossovers extend beyond the driveways, whereas Mr X said his is narrower. He is unhappy with the inconsistent size and quality of the crossovers the Council installed between neighbouring properties.
3. Mr X wanted the Council to extend his vehicle crossover so that it is the same width it used to be.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

6. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Vehicle crossovers

9. A dropped kerb, or vehicle crossover, is a lowered area of pavement outside a property. It allows vehicles to cross the pavement from the road to a driveway. Councils may have different requirements and guidelines for installing a vehicle crossover.

The Council’s vehicle crossover guidance

10. The Council’s standard vehicle crossover consists of two sloping kerbs either side of three dropped kerbs in the middle. This equates to roughly 4.6 metres along the kerb line.
11. The Council says it will take people’s preference into account, but it will ultimately decide the final size and position of the crossover.

What happened

12. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
13. When workers attended before installing the new crossovers, they marked the position of the old crossovers in white paint. This enabled the Council to take a measurement of the crossover. The Council provided me with a photograph showing the markings of the old crossover outside Mr X’s home.
14. Workers carried out a ‘walkthrough’ of Mr X’s street to measure each crossover. They recorded the measurements in a spreadsheet, dated 10 February 2023. The Council provided me with a copy of this spreadsheet. It confirms workers measured Mr X’s former crossover to be 2.3 metres wide.
15. Following the works, Mr X emailed the Council. He said the Council reduced his crossover width whilst increasing crossovers of other houses on the street. He asked the Council to reinstate his crossover to the width it was before, or he would take legal action.
16. The Council said it put back crossovers on Mr X’s street to their original width and height. It said Mr X’s crossover looked wider than it actually was as the older style kerbs were low profile. It said it replaced the kerbs with full height ones.
17. Mr X repeated his original crossover was wider and the Council reduced it. He asked the Council to visit his home to review the position.
18. The Council emailed Mr X with comments from an engineer who worked on the project. They said the Council reinstated the crossover outside Mr X’s home to its previous dimensions prior to any work. The crossover enables access and egress from the property as before.
19. Mr X made a formal complaint. He said the Council did not reinstate the crossover outside his home to the original standard. He provided photographs which he said showed the previous crossover was wider.
20. The Council said the crossovers are the same width as before the works. Workers marked the limits of the former crossovers on the road before installing the new crossovers to ensure they were replaced the same width.
21. Mr X said the Council’s response was wrong and did not explain why his crossover is not the same size as other houses with smaller entry points. Mr X claimed an engineer told him the Council incorrectly installed his new crossover. He also said his crossover should be 3 metres wide, as his neighbour told him that is what the former owner of his home paid the Council to install.
22. In its final complaint response, the Council said an engineer measured Mr X’s crossover and confirmed the Council put it back the same width as before the works. It said the same applies for neighbouring crossovers. Some crossovers are different widths depending on what the householder requested at the time the Council first installed them.
23. The Council said it spoke to the engineer Mr X referred to. They confirmed speaking to Mr X and acknowledging his complaint, but they did not say the Council incorrectly installed his crossover.
24. The Council said if Mr X supplied evidence the previous owner applied to extend the crossover it would consider this.

My investigation

25. Mr X told me he understands the previous owner of his home paid the Council to install a 3-metre vehicle crossover about 30 years ago. He did not have evidence of this, however.
26. Mr X said he has the narrowest vehicle crossover on the street. The Council has extended some neighbouring crossovers beyond the driveways but made his crossover shorter. He said there has been no consistency in the Council’s approach.
27. Mr X also said the new, larger, kerb stones damage his car tyres because he has less room for manoeuvre.
28. The Council told me it does not have a policy stating crossovers will be like for like replacements. Its duty under the Highway Act is to repair crossovers, not improve them.
29. The Council said, in response to my investigation, it visited Mr X’s street to measure his new crossover again. It said the width of the lowered section (not including edges) is now 2.4 metres. It said Mr X’s former crossover was 2.3 metres wide.

Analysis

30. The Council’s procedure says standard crossovers will be 4.6 metres, including the sloping edges on both sides. In this case, the Council measured just the lowered section of the crossover, not the edges. Unless each edge stone is nearly half as wide as the lowered section of the crossover, it appears Mr X’s new crossover is not as wide as the Council’s standard 4.6 metres.
31. However, the figure of 4.6 metres is not a national standard or requirement for vehicle crossovers. The Council’s guidance makes clear the Council will ultimately make the final decision about size and position of the crossing. In this case, the Council is satisfied with the new arrangement. That it is a decision the Council is entitled to reach.
32. Rather than focusing on its standard crossover size, the Council has focused in this case on ensuring the new crossover is as wide as the crossover it replaced.
33. I can appreciate Mr X’s frustration because the situation does look different to before. The old pavement kerb stones, and crossover edges, were shallower, or sunken. This made Mr X’s crossover look larger. The new kerb stones and edges are larger and protrude higher above the road surface than before. This has the effect of making the lowered section of the crossover look narrower, with more pronounced edges.
34. However, I found the Council has not replaced Mr X’s crossover with a narrower one. The Council has positioned the new crossover more centrally, which is why Mr X feels he has lost part of the crossover on one side. Despite the new position, the crossover is at least the same size as before. I therefore find no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation. I did not find fault in the Council’s actions.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman