Swindon Borough Council (21 012 063)

Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 12 May 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr E complained about the Council’s delays when he reported his neighbours were using his dropped kerb. We find the Council was at fault as it delayed responding to Mr E’s communication and it also delayed responding to his complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address Mr E’s injustice.

The complaint

  1. Mr E complained about the Council’s delays when he reported his neighbours were using his dropped kerb. He says he had to constantly chase the Council for a response.
  2. Mr E says he experienced a racial hate incident, and this could have been avoided if the Council had acted sooner. He also says he and his family have suffered immeasurable distress because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  2. 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

  1. I considered information from Mr E. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
  2. Mr E and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr E has experienced problems with his neighbours using his dropped kerb sporadically for several years. He called the Council’s contact centre more recently in October 2020 and explained his neighbours were using his dropped kerb. Mr E says the officer took his email address, but he heard nothing further. The Council has no record of this call.
  2. Mr E called the Council’s contact centre again on 9 November for an update. The officer he spoke to said she would chase things up.
  3. Mr E called the Council again on 7 December as he had heard nothing. The officer said she would chase for an update. She also gave Mr E the phone numbers for the Council officers that deal with such matters.
  4. Mr E spoke with an officer (Officer A) about the issues. She told him to send an email so the Council could help with his query.
  5. Mr E sent two emails on the same day and explained the issues. He also sent a photograph. The Council did not respond.
  6. Mr E called Officer A on 9 March 2021. She gave him the contact details for another officer (Officer B).
  7. Mr E spoke with Officer B on 10 March. The Council has no record of this call. Mr E made a note of the call which states Officer B agreed to discuss the matter with another officer (Officer C). Officer B also considered sending a warning letter to Mr E’s neighbour.
  8. Mr E called Officer C on 12 and 24 May. Officer C did not answer. Mr E also sent Officer C a text message and asked to arrange a time to discuss the issues further.
  9. There is no evidence the Council responded to any of Mr E’s communication. He therefore sent a further email to the Council on 2 June. He said for eight months he had tried to contact it, but no one had dealt with his issues. He said the matter was causing him and his family a lot of distress.
  10. Mr E received a racially motivated letter from his neighbour the following month. He reported it to the police. He also sent an email to the Council and explained what had happened. He said if it did not contact him within 24 hours, he would raise a formal complaint.
  11. Officer C responded on the same day. He said he had visited the site to investigate the issue. He said the dropped kerb was not for the sole use of Mr E’s property and it could be used by others if safe to do so.
  12. Mr E replied and said he had spoken to other officers who had a different view. He asked for a meeting on site to discuss the issues further. Officer C agreed to meet on 12 July.
  13. Mr E sent Officer C an email of what they discussed at the site visit. This said Officer C agreed Mr E’s neighbour had been misusing the dropped kerb.
  14. Mr E raised a formal complaint on 14 July about the time it had taken the Council to resolve his concerns.
  15. The Council should have responded to Mr E’s complaint within 10 working days in accordance with its complaints procedure. It did not respond within this timeframe, so Mr E called to chase for a response on 11, 13, 17 and 24 August.
  16. The Council decided to upgrade Mr E’s complaint to a stage two complaint as it missed the deadline to respond at stage one.
  17. The Council issued its stage two response on 12 October. It said the dropped kerb was under its ownership and it can approve for other residents to use it. It also said it had communicated with Mr E’s neighbour and asked if they wanted to continue using the dropped kerb. If his neighbour did not make an application to use the dropped kerb, it would consider taking enforcement action. It also said he could contact an officer (Officer D) to discuss matters further.
  18. Mr E emailed Officer D and arranged a site visit. There are no notes of this visit, and so it is not clear what they discussed.
  19. Mr E emailed the Council on 10 November and said it had not resolved the issues.
  20. The Council sent a letter to Mr E’s neighbour in January 2022 and said they would need to apply to use the dropped kerb or file their objections within 28 days. If they did not comply, it would be an offence. The Council did not receive a response, so it sent a further letter the following month.
  21. Mr E says his neighbour has not used the dropped kerb since the Council’s latest letter.

Back to top

Analysis

  1. The Council significantly delayed responding to Mr E’s communication. His contact started in October 2020, and it took until July 2021 for the Council to provide any substantive response. This is fault. This has caused Mr E a significant injustice as he was put to time and trouble chasing the matter up over an extended period. It also caused Mr E frustration.
  2. The Council says it told Mr E to make a formal complaint through the proper channels (online or the call centre), but he did not do so until July 2021. It also says he only made phone calls to officers who he kept numbers from in previous communication and that is why it did not document them.
  3. There is no evidence the Council told Mr E the only way it would respond is if he made an official complaint. It was not necessary for Mr E to make a complaint in October 2020, as he wanted the Council to investigate matters first. In any event, the Council told Mr E on 7 December 2020 to put his concerns in writing so it could investigate. Mr E did so on the same day, but the Council failed to respond.
  4. It is not true that Mr E only made calls to individual officers. He called the Council’s contact centre in October, November and December 2020 and so there should be some records of these calls. He only called individual officers after the member of staff he spoke to on 7 December 2020 provided him with their phone numbers. I appreciate the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the Council’s resources, but it should have responded to Mr E and given an approximate timescale of when it could deal with his concerns.
  5. The Council also significantly delayed responding to Mr E’s complaint. It should have responded by 28 July 2021, but it did not respond until two and a half months later. Mr E was put to further time and trouble chasing a response to his complaint.
  6. The Council told Mr E in its response to his complaint it had communicated with his neighbour, and it was waiting for an application. There is no evidence the Council communicated with Mr E’s neighbour until January 2022. This represents a further delay.
  7. Mr E says he is confident the racial hate incident would have been avoided if the Council had acted sooner. I cannot say with any certainty whether this would have been the case. However, I can appreciate why Mr E feel this way. The Council’s faults have caused Mr E unnecessary time and trouble and frustration. The Council needs to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. To address the injustice caused by fault, by 15 June 2022 the Council has agreed to:
  • Apologise to Mr E.
  • Pay him £300 which reflects his unnecessary time and trouble and frustration.
  1. By 13 July 2022:
  • Issue written reminders to staff within its streetworks department to ensure they are aware they should respond to customer’s queries without unnecessary delay. If there are going to be delays, they should keep customers updated.
  • Issue written reminders to relevant staff to ensure they are aware of the Council’s complaints procedure and the timescales for responding to complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr E an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings