Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council installing tactile paving in front of the complainant’s property. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council has installed tactile paving in front of her property. She says the paving will make it more difficult for her to get a dropped kerb installed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X complains about the Council installing tactile paving in front of her property. She says the paving now means she will be required to apply for planning permission to have a dropped kerb installed. When Mrs X complained to the Council, the project was already under construction and the Council says that changes could not be made.
6. The tactile paving was installed by the Council as part of a wider project intended to promote the use of bicycles and make walkways safer. The Council conducted consultation with local residents and the wider community in 2023. Construction took place during 2025.
7. Mrs X says she was aware of the consultation but did not respond as she did not realise the tactile paving would be placed outside her property.
8. In response to Mrs X’s complaint, a Council officer visited her to explain the reasons for the location of the tactile paving. The Council also advised Mrs X that, in order to have a dropped kerb installed, planning permission is a requirement. That was the case before the scheme was constructed as well as after. Should Mrs X wish to have a dropped kerb to her property, she should apply to the Council for planning permission.
9. It is not for the Ombudsman to express a view on whether the Council should have installed the paving. Neither can we take a view on the likely outcome of an application for a dropped kerb. Our role is to consider whether there is evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decisions. The Council’s actions and response to Mrs X’s complaints were reasonable and proportionate. There is not enough evidence the Council is at fault to justify the Ombudsman investigating the matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman