Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the costs associated with installing a dropped kerb in front of his property. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council as it has decided the matter in line with its published policy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision on his dropped kerb application. He disagrees with the Council’s decision he would need to bear the cost of a bus shelter being removed in order for the dropped kerb to be 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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. I considered the Council’s dropped kerb (footway crossing) policy - January 2021.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb. There is a bus shelter in the road which the Council says would need to be removed in order for the dropped kerb to be installed and provide a safe access to Mr X’s property frontage.
9. The Council told Mr X he would need to bear the cost of removing the bus shelter. Mr X says this is over £3000.
10. Mr X says he understands he needs to pay for the dropped kerb to be installed but does not agree he should have to pay for the bus shelter to be removed. He says the Council or the bus company should pay. Mr X has seen other dropped kerbs in the Council’s area which are not well sited and are near to bus stops yet have been granted permission. He questions the Council’s decision in his case.
11. The Council’s dropped kerb policy states at section 3: ‘What may be included in charges – All costs to alter the highway when constructing the footway crossing to provide a legal vehicular access to private property are to be paid by the applicant. The footway crossing service is provided on a cost recovery basis only.’ It states this includes charges to relocate, remove or replace street furniture.
12. Whilst I note Mr X is unhappy with the costs involved, I can see no sign of fault by the Council here. This is because its decision that Mr X would have to bear the cost is made in line with its current published policy which applies to all applications.
13. The presence of other poorly placed dropped kerbs is not a sign of fault by the Council as policies will change over time for many reasons including safety improvements and historical dropped kerbs may well not meet the current criteria.
14. Whilst the Council has made a final decision, it says an officer from the dropped kerbs team has recently contacted Mr X by email in order to discuss the additional points he raised during his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council as it has made its decision in line with the current published policy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman