Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s installation of a dropped kerb at Ms X’s property. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council mishandled the installation of a dropped kerb at her property and that what was installed did not match the markings that had been drawn for it and it was shorter than what had been agreed.

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 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In a previous complaint to the Ombudsman, it was established that if Ms X wanted the Council to install a dropped kerb at her property it would be to a maximum of 2 kerb lengths due to concerns by the Council’s tree team.
6. Ms X decided to go ahead with the installation but complained to the Council saying what had been installed did not match the markings which had set out where the dropped kerb was to be nor the length of what had been agreed.
7. The Council explained the officer dealing with her case had told her that regardless of where she thought the markings had been placed, the crossover was always going to be extended by only two kerb lengths and this is what it did.
8. Ms X may have been confused by the positioning of the markings laid out at her property for the crossover. However, the Council extended the dropped kerb by the two kerb lengths it had always confirmed would be the maximum length and there are no grounds which warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman