Summary: The Council was at fault for how it dealt with Mr B’s request for an extension to a dropped kerb at the front of his property. It did not keep proper records so we cannot see how it made its decision. It was also at fault for how it handled Mr B’s complaint. It has agreed to review its decision on the dropped kerb and to ensure its staff are trained in complaint-handling.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council refused his application for a dropped kerb. He says the officer who dealt with his request had a conflict of interest and the outcome was predetermined before the Council visited his property.
2. Mr B says the officer who dealt with his request was ‘flippant’ on the telephone, a senior officer was ‘abusive’ in emails, and the officers who visited his property were ‘flippant and abusive’, and laughed at him.
3. Mr B says the Council failed to properly handle his complaint about these matters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

6. I considered information from Mr B and the Council. Both 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

The Council’s complaints procedure

7. The Council says it will acknowledge all formal complaints within five working days, and will aim to respond within 20 working days. If it cannot respond in that time it will write to the complainant, explain the delay, and set a new timescale.
8. If the complainant is unhappy with the response to their complaint, they can appeal. The Council will send them the outcome of their appeal within 28 days.

What happened

9. In early 2022, Mr B contacted the Council to ask advice about whether he could extend the dropped kerb at the front of his property. The officer he spoke to told him an application would likely be unsuccessful as it would not meet the Council’s criteria.
10. Around this time, Mr B received emails from a senior officer at the Council. Mr B feels that the emails he received were ‘abusive’.
11. Rather than submitting a formal application, Mr B then escalated his request to the Chief Executive of the Council, who – in April 2022 – arranged a site visit to look at the kerb outside Mr B’s property. Mr B believes the officers who visited were under instruction from the Council to reject his request. The Council says no such instruction existed and the officers fully considered the information Mr B provided during the visit.
12. The Council does not have any documents associated with its site visit.
13. Shortly after, Mr B submitted a complaint to the Chief Executive – as summarised in the opening section of this decision statement. The Council did not acknowledge the complaint for two weeks, but, when it did (at the end of April), it said it would aim to respond in 20 working days.
14. Over the following six months, Mr B (or a councillor, on his behalf) chased the Council for a response to his complaint on several occasions.
15. The Council finally responded at the end of October. It said Mr B already has a dropped kerb across part of his property, and to extend it as much as he wanted would mean there would not be a 5-metre distance between the front of his property and the road. It said this would also restrict visitor parking. But it offered a smaller extension.
16. The Council accepted that the language used by its senior officer in emails earlier in the year fell below the standard it expects. It said this had been addressed with the officer by the Chief Executive (who is her line manager). It apologised to Mr B.
17. Mr B attempted to appeal the Council’s response to his complaint, but he did not receive a response.

My findings

18. Mr B did not apply for a dropped kerb extension using the Council’s normal procedure. But the Council took action in response to his request – including providing advice on the telephone, conducting a site visit and making a decision.
19. The Council does not have documents in relation to the above. Because of this – although it explained its decision in its complaint response – I cannot see how it made the decision. This was fault by the Council and it should take action (as set out below) to remedy this situation.
20. The Council has accepted fault for the conduct of its senior officer. It has apologised to Mr B. This has remedied his injustice and I will not comment further.
21. Although Mr B also makes complaints about the conduct of other officers both on the telephone and in person, it is unlikely I could make a finding on these matters, so I will not investigate further.
22. The Council significantly delayed its response to Mr B’s formal complaint, and then did not respond to his appeal. This was fault by the Council, and it should take action to ensure similar failings do not happen again.

Back to top

Agreed actions

23. Within six weeks, the Council has agreed to review Mr B’s request for an extension of his dropped kerb in line with its procedures. It has agreed to keep proper documentary records and to write to Mr B to explain its decision.
24. Within three months, the Council has agreed to ensure all officers who were involved with Mr B’s formal complaint and appeal are adequately trained on complaint-handling, particularly with regard to the timescales set out in the Council’s procedure.
25. The Council has agreed to provide us with evidence it has completed the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

26. The Council was at fault for how it dealt with Mr B’s request for a dropped kerb, and for its complaint-handling. The agreed actions remedy his injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman