Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council responded to her concerns regarding the quality of her dropped kerb. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it responded to Miss X’s concerns; we could not add to any previous investigation by the Council; and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X raised concerns about the quality of the workmanship, repairs and materials used for the dropped kerb outside her home. She complained the Council failed to properly consider her concerns or take appropriate remedial action.
2. Miss X said these issues meant her dropped kerb was not aesthetically pleasing, which caused her anxiety. She wanted the Council to re-tarmac the entire area and replace the kerbs.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X paid for dropped kerb outside her property in 2023. The Council completed the works and later completed repairs to the area following reports of damage. Miss X complained to the Council about the quality of the initial work, repairs and materials used.
7. The Council considered Miss X’s complaint and responded. It confirmed the contractor who completed the initial works was an approved contractor with the necessary skills, knowledge and experience to deliver the work.
8. The Council also carried out an inspection and identified minor kerb damage. It added that as the dropped kerb was installed approximately 2-3 years prior, deterioration may have occurred over time due to weather, ground movement and vehicle loads.
9. The Council assessed the damage against its criteria and found it did not meet the threshold for replacement as the area was still safe and fit for purpose. It explained this to Miss X and confirmed it would continue to monitor and inspect the area for further damage and assess any defects against its criteria.
10. We will not investigate this complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered Miss X’s concerns to justify investigating. The Council carried out repairs, inspected the site, explained its findings to Miss X and confirmed it would continue to monitor the area. Investigation by the Ombudsman would not add any further meaningful outcome.
11. In any event, we will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is a good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the service provider.
12. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where:
• the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the service provider, or
• there are continuous and ongoing instances of lower-level injustice that remain unresolved over a long period of time.
13. We will not normally investigate a complaint where:
• the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
14. In this instance Miss X has said the dropped kerb is not aesthetically pleasing. This in itself, is not significant enough to justify investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council; we could not add to any previous investigation by the Council; and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman