Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not enforcing against the owner of a nearby house for accessing their property in vehicles with no dropped kerb and crossover, how it dealt with his contacts and reports, and an officer viewing his online profile page. There is insufficient significant unremedied personal injustice to Mr X from the matters complained of to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in an area where a resident installed and has been using a hard standing for vehicles without putting in a dropped kerb and vehicle crossover. He complains the Council:
1. has failed to take enforcement action against the resident;
2. failed to reply or properly respond to his correspondence on the matter for many months;
3. accessed an online professional profile page of his during the matter.
2. Mr X says the Council has wasted his time by him having to chase the issue, which had financial consequences for him. He says he has found the matter stressful, distressing and inconvenient. Mr X considers it unjust other residents have installed crossovers while this one has not and he has lost faith in the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Mr X, relevant online maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. There have been faults by the Council in its process when responding to the core issue of the resident accessing their property, property A, in a vehicle while not having a dropped kerb or crossover in place. There was also Council fault in its lack of responses to some of Mr X’s correspondence, and in the content of some of its replies where it did respond.
7. However, we will not investigate. Even where there has been council fault, our remit requires us to go on to consider whether that fault has caused such a significant personal injustice to the complainant to warrant us investigating. Mr X lives in the same area but in a different road to property A. There is no impact on the amenity of Mr X’s property caused by the core highway issue he reported to the Council in 2024. Any impact of property A’s use of their hardstanding for vehicles is no greater for Mr X than any other local resident and would not amount to a significant personal injustice to him. The injustice to him from the core highways matter at property A, even though it has not been resolved by the Council, is insufficiently significant to warrant us investigating.
8. Mr X’s main claimed injustice of time, trouble, distress and loss of faith in the Council stems from how its officers replied to his reports and contacts on the highways matter. But while the Council could have provided better and faster replies, it was Mr X’s choice to take time out pursuing responses on a highways matter which does not significantly affect him. The Council has apologised for how officers handled his reports and correspondence. An apology is the outcome we likely would have sought had we investigated. There is insufficient unremedied injustice to Mr X caused by the Council here to warrant us investigating.
9. We understand Mr X may be annoyed and frustrated the owner of property A has so far avoided having a crossover and dropped kerb and any enforcement action. But any good fortune to the owner from the Council not using its discretionary enforcement powers is not a significant personal injustice to Mr X warranting an investigation. We also recognise Mr X is concerned property A’s owner’s use of their hardstanding is a breach of the Highways Act 1980. Any breach from vehicles accessing the property is against the Council’s role as the highways authority, not Mr X, and does not amount to his personal injustice.
10. Mr X is concerned an officer viewed an online public profile page of his during the matter. We recognise Mr X may have been upset by this and it is not clear why an officer would have visited the page. But even if it were fault, there is insufficient evidence the officer seeing the profile Mr X placed online led to any significant personal injustice to him which would justify us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient significant unremedied personal injustice to him caused by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman