Summary: Mr B complained that when the Council repaired the pavement outside his property, it narrowed the vehicle crossover. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that when the Council repaired the pavement outside his property, it narrowed the vehicle crossover. He says he now has restricted access to his drive.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’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

4. I considered all the information provided by Mr B about his complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and took account of the information and images it provided in response.
5. I shared my draft decision with Mr B and the Council and I invited them to comment on it.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr B has lived at his house for over 30 years. He says there has always been a vehicle crossover which begins at the end of his boundary wall. A vehicle crossover is a dropped kerb which allows someone to access their drive and park on their property.
7. In August 2019, the Council wrote to Mr B and told him about repair works to the footway outside his property. Residents were invited to apply to have their vehicle crossing widened at a reduced rate. The Council also explained it could not deal with applications where lamp columns, trees or other items of street furniture would need relocating for a vehicle crossing.
8. When Mr B saw the proposed position of the vehicle crossover outside his property, he spoke to the highway engineer. The highway engineer explained over time the kerb stones in the footway had dropped which gave a false impression of the level at which the crossover would have been installed when new. It was the highway engineer’s view the crossover had been installed correctly.
9. Mr B made a complaint to the Council in September 2019. He explained the vehicle crossover had been reduced and he could not drive on or off his drive without bumping over a raised kerb. He wanted the Council to restore the vehicle crossover to the position it had been for the past 30 years.
10. The Council issued its stage one response to Mr B’s complaint. It explained the kerbs had sunk overtime and the vehicle crossing had not reduced in size.
11. Mr B remained dissatisfied. He escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure and explained the first response did not address his complaint. The Council issued its stage two response to Mr B’s complaint in November 2019. It explained the tolerance for the lip of the crossover was in line with its current standards. The Council also said Mr B had not applied for his crossover to be widened when he was sent the letter in August 2019. It would therefore have been inappropriate to change the proposed work at a late stage.
12. Mr B escalated his complaint to stage three of the Council’s complaints procedure in December 2019. The Council responded in January 2020 and re-iterated its view the crossing Mr B was using was a raised kerb that was eroded by the repetitive use of vehicles.
13. Mr B was unhappy with the Council’s response and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.
14. In its response to my enquiries, the Council provided images from Google Maps which show a gradual sinking of the kerb to the left of Mr B’s drive from 2012, 2015 and 2018. I have also seen images of the vehicle crossover before and after the completed works.
15. The Council also explained it repaired the kerb in line with Mr B’s boundary wall and the new installation is wider than the original installation by 100 millimetres. The Council said even if Mr B had applied to widen his crossover, it would not have been possible because it required the relocation of a manhole cover to the left of his drive.

Back to top

Analysis

16. I do not find fault with the Council’s actions. It is not in dispute the vehicle crossover now in place is not identical to the one that existed just before the Council did work to the pavement. The evidence shows the kerb to the left of Mr B’s drive eroded over time. The Council has, therefore, restored the vehicle crossover to the position it would have been in had the erosion not happened.
17. The Council sent a letter of the proposed works to Mr B. When Mr B raised his concerns, it explained why it was satisfied the installation was in line with its current standards and therefore it was not obliged to make the alterations he suggested. I appreciate Mr B disagrees with this, but the Ombudsman can only question a decision or process if it was carried out with fault. We are not an appeals body and so cannot substitute our view of what the design should be for the Council’s. There is no evidence of fault in the process followed in this case and so I am satisfied the Council acted properly.
18. The Council has also now explained it would not have been possible to widen the vehicle crossover as Mr B requested because it required the relocation of a manhole cover. The Council’s letter to Mr B in August 2019 said it would not be able to make any alterations where items of street furniture would need relocation for a vehicle crossing.
19. Even if I were to find fault, the Council’s actions have not caused Mr B a significant injustice. I am satisfied from the images provided to me of the new vehicle crossover, Mr B has enough room to get on and off his drive and access to his property has not been significantly restricted by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr B’s complaint. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman