Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dropped kerb and an allegation the complainant has been treated differently to his neighbours. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council treated him less favourably to some neighbours who benefited from free extensions to their dropped kerbs while he had to pay. Mr X wants a refund for the cost of his dropped kerb.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. In 2020 Mr X applied to widen his dropped kerb. He did not give a reason and was not required to. The Council granted permission in July 2020. Mr X paid £1520.
5. In July 2021 the Council did pavement work in Mr X’s street. As part of the work some neighbours had free work to extend their dropped kerbs.
6. Mr X complained and asked for a refund. In response the Council explained that in July 2020 it was not known that work would be done in his street a year later. It explained the work programmes are not drawn up until the end of the financial year when budgets for the new financial year are set. The Council also said there is no guarantee planned works will take place. The Council said that, going forwards, it will ask residents to make a contribution if they will benefit from pavement works. It also said the cost of extending the neighbours’ kerbs during the work was negligible. The Council declined to issue a refund but invited Mr X to make a claim on its insurance. Mr X submitted a claim.
7. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. There is nothing to suggest the Council knew in July 2020 that it would do footway works a year later. Mr X applied to widen his kerb and the Council processed the application in the usual way. If he had not made the application in 2020 he may have benefitted from free work a year later but this is a matter of timing not fault. And, while the Council says it will now ask people for a contribution, this does not mean there was fault in the way it processed Mr X’s application.
8. The Council has not processed Mr X’s insurance claim because Mr X has not suffered any damage to his property. Mr X had expressed doubt about the appropriateness of the claim. The Council probably should not have invited the claim but, while not ideal, this does not warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman