Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his dropped kerb application. He said the Council put incorrect markings on the road which meant the finished dropped kerb did not correctly align to his property. I ended this investigation. This is because Mr X commissioned his own contractor to complete the works. Further investigation would unlikely find the Council at fault or achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his dropped kerb application. He said the Council put incorrect markings on the road which meant his contractor installed the kerb too far to the left of his property. As a result Mr X cannot use part of his driveway without driving over a 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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 spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered information he provided including his application and drawing of the proposed kerb.
4. I considered information from the Council.
5. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. In April 2022 Mr X applied to the Council to install a dropped kerb at the front of his property. Mr X was planning to convert his front garden into a driveway. As part of the application Mr X submitted a hand drawn sketch of where he wanted to dropped kerbs which had approximate distances on it. Mr X paid the standard fee of £164.48 which included a site visit by a Council officer.
7. The Council approved Mr X’s application. Mr X said a Council officer visited his property when he was not present and put some markings on the road to indicate where the dropped kerb should be installed.
8. Mr X commissioned his own contractor to install the dropped kerb and the driveway. Upon completion Mr X realised the dropped kerb was misaligned with his boundary and the new driveway. He said it is too far to the left which means any vehicle using the right side of the driveway has to drive up and off a raised kerb.
9. Mr X complained to the Council. He said the Council officer did not mark the road correctly which meant the dropped kerb is misaligned to his driveway and too far to the left. The Council responded and said Mr X or his contractor should have raised the markings before starting work. The Council said it would allow Mr X to rectify the dropped kerb, but he would have to pay.
10. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the process. He said he not ask for the kerb to be installed to the left of his property. Mr X agreed he did not query the markings with his contractor but maintained the markings were wrong which means his driveway is difficult to now use.
11. The Council issued its final complaint response. It said Mr X should have raised concerns about the position of the dropped kerb with his contractor. The Council said Mr X can change the dropped kerb but at his own cost.
12. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us.
13. The Council told us it is willing to waive the application fee of Mr X wants to change the dropped kerb however it is for Mr X to pay a contractor to complete the works.

My findings

14. Mr X’s main dispute is around the markings on the road which the Council drew prior to work starting.
15. I should not investigate this complaint any further because ultimately it was the Council’s role is to decide whether to approve a dropped kerb application. It then marked the road, however this was before work had started on Mr X’s driveway and therefore unlikely without a scaled drawing to be completely accurate. It was Mr X’s responsibility to commission a contractor to carry out the work to the required standard. Neither Mr X or the contractor raised issues before or during works. Therefore, it is unlikely further investigation would find the Council at fault for the finished works or lead to a different outcome. Mr X wants the Council to pay for the works but this is an outcome I cannot achieve for the reasons explained in this paragraph.
16. For the reasons explained above I intend to end this investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I ended this investigation because it is unlikely further investigation would find the Council at fault and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman