Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about her request for a dropped kerb. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome for her.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms B, complaint that there was fault in the way the Council dealt with her request for a dropped kerb in front of her home. Ms B told us the process has taken so long that the original quotation has lapsed. She says she must get a new quotation which she thinks is likely to result in a higher cost.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information Ms B provided, her photograph, her complaints to the Council and the Council’s responses. I have also considered Ms B’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms B told us she asked the Council for a dropped kerb in front of her house to the right-hand side. There is already a dropped kerb in front of her neighbour’s house with one kerb which rises in height to the property boundary. Ms B told us, when the Council came to measure, its measurements started about six to seven inches inside her neighbour’s property boundary. Her concern is that this will mean the width of the dropped kerb is only 2.6 metres within her property boundary, rather than the 2.75 metre width she asked for. She explained her concern about this when she complained to the Council.
5. Ms B says, when the Council replied to her complaint, it referred to a centrally positioned driveway which is not what she wants. So she feels the Council has not properly read what she had written in her complaint. The Council has offered to visit her. Ms B told us she asked for a visit but the Council never responded further.
6. In its initial response to Ms B’s complaint the Council said she had asked for a vehicle crossing in a central position outside her property which was not possible. It said there were two alternative options to keep the width of the crossing at 2.75 metres. Either it could join her crossing to her neighbour’s using all lowered kerbs to avoid a peak or move it to the other side of her drive to leave one full size kerb between the two crossings.
7. Ms B replied to the Council saying she had not asked for a centralised drive. She said she would not pay for remedial work outside her neighbour’s house. She made it clear she wanted a full 2.75 metre vehicle crossing. In its next response to Ms B’s complaint the Council again said Ms B’s request had been for a centrally positioned crossing. The Council explained that work was needed to the kerb outside her neighbour’s property in order to provide a joined vehicle crossing safely. Ms B remained dissatisfied with this response and with the Council’s final response to her complaint.
8. In this case the Council has said it is possible for Ms B to get a 2.75 metre-wide vehicle crossing which is joined to her neighbour’s. But to do this safely it would need to remove the existing rising kerb outside her neighbour’s home and replace it with a lowered kerb for safety reasons. Ms B told us she has a disability which affects her mobility. She says she qualifies for a discount on a vehicle crossing of 2.75 metres. She told us it has taken her some time to save for the dropped kerb and she cannot afford to pay for additional width.
9. Ms B accepts the Council needs to remove and replace the existing kerb stone at the boundary of her and her neighbour’s properties if it installs the new dropped kerb in the position she wants. But she has not agreed to pay for this. The Council has offered another option to Ms B but she does not want the drive in the alternative position the Council has suggested. The Council has confirmed to us s the width of a joined vehicle crossing within Ms B’s property would be 2.75 metres but the work needed would have to include the removal and replacement of the kerb between her and her neighbour’s property. That is not fault. The replacement of the kerb is an intrinsic part of the work needed for the Council to install a 2.75 metre vehicle crossing in the position Ms B wants. For this reason, it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome for the complainant.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman