Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his vehicle crossover extension application. We found the Council at fault for significant delays quoting for the work, and in responding to Mr X’s complaint. This caused Mr X avoidable distress which the Council agreed to remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his vehicle crossover extension application.
2. Mr X said the Council was responsible for significant delay providing a quote for the works. When the Council did provide a quote, it was based on its new rates, not the rates available at the time Mr X applied. Mr X said it is unfair he should have to pay more because of the Council’s failings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council 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

Vehicle crossovers

8. A vehicle crossover, or dropped kerb, allows vehicles to cross the pavement from the road to a driveway.
9. This involves lowering the kerb stones, then strengthening the pavement and making it into a ramp for vehicles to cross.

The Council’s dropped kerb application process

10. Details of the Council’s dropped kerb application process can be found on its website. It provides information about driveway requirements and whether a planning application is needed. However, the Council does not publish details about the timescales for providing a quote or completing the work. It also does not give pricing details. However, it does confirm there is a non-refundable administration fee at the start to make an application.

The Council’s complaint procedure

11. The Council first tries to resolve complaints informally. Where this is unsuccessful, people can make a formal stage one complaint either online, by telephone, in writing, or in person. The Council aims to respond to stage one complaints within 20 working days.
12. If someone is unhappy with the Council’s stage one response, they can ask the Council to review it at stage two. A senior Council officer will aim to respond to stage two complaints within 28 days.

What happened

13. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
14. Mr X applied for an extension to their existing dropped kerb in March 2022. He paid an application fee of £61.
15. The Council approved the application in April 2022. It wrote to Mr X confirming the work would involve removing five kerbs and adding one taper kerb, then retarmacking the footway. It said Mr X should receive a quote for the work within 28 days.
16. Mr X telephoned the Council in late June and early July 2023 to register a formal complaint.
17. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 4 September 2023. It apologised for the way it handled the situation, and said it had a backlog of this work which it was trying to clear. It attached a quote for the work, confirming it would cost £1,900 if Mr X wanted to proceed.
18. On 29 September 2023, Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage two. He gave a timeline of events and said:
• He chased the Council for an update on the quote on 14 November 2022. The Council directed him to its Streetscene Operations and its customer contact centre.
• He telephoned the contact centre on 30 November 2022 and 23 February 2023. Both times operators promised the Council would respond in five working days. Both times he did not receive a response.
• He emailed the Council’s Streetscene Operations on 8 June 2023 asking how long the quote would take. He did not receive a response.
• He telephoned the contact centre on 27 June 2023 to make a stage one complaint. He telephoned again on 5 July 2023 to chase a response. Again, he did not receive a response.
• He logged a stage two complaint on 31 July 2023 as it was over 20 working days since his stage one complaint.
• He received an email from the Council on 2 August telling him it mistakenly logged his stage one complaint in June as an informal complaint. It would therefore log his recent complaint as a stage one complaint.
• He received the Council’s stage one complaint response, and quote for the work, in September 2023.
• It was unacceptable and unprofessional for the Council to take so long to send him a quote. He was also unhappy with its lack of communication about the delay, and for its failure to respond to his requests for updates. Further, he said it was unacceptable and unprofessional the Council failed to respond to his complaint promptly, which added to the already lengthy delay. Last, he said the complaint response the Council sent was inadequate as it glossed over the delays and did not address his complaint or suggest a resolution. He said the Council did not address his appeal for compensation and provided a quote based on 2023 prices, which are higher than the price would have been in 2022.
19. An internal Council email on 24 November 2023 states it logged Mr X’s stage two request as a stage one complaint by mistake. The stage two complaint was therefore only sent through that day.
20. The Council sent its final complaint response on 12 March 2024. It apologised for the delay responding to Mr X’s complaint. It also apologised for the service he received when trying to complain by telephone, and for failing to log this as a formal complaint. It said this error meant it could also not log Mr X’s online stage two complaint. It said it raised this with the call handler, and regularly reviews call quality.
21. The Council said it cannot provide a new quote based on 2022 prices, but it was willing to honour the quote from 2023. It said the amount charged is what it would cost the Council to do the work.
22. The Council apologised for the delays providing a quote, and said this was due to major resource issues beyond its control. It said it was reviewing its vehicle crossover application process to address the current issues.

My investigation

23. The Council provided me with a breakdown of its £1,900 quote. The total estimated cost of the work, based on 2023 rates, is £1,856.21. The Council also told me "a small uplift is added to the total for administration work".
24. The Council confirmed the base cost rates for this work were set in 2020. There was a 7.05% increase in rates for 2022, and a 25.99% increase for 2023. This meant 2023 prices were 19.84% higher than 2022 prices. It told me the increases were part of a contractual uplift agreed within the Greater Manchester Framework Agreement, and rates are reviewed each year.
25. The Council calculated the estimated cost for the work based on 2022 rates is £1,577.17 (this does not include any administration charges).

Analysis

26. The Council approved Mr X’s dropped kerb application on 5 April 2022. It told him it was passing his application to its Streetscene Operations team, and he would receive a quote for the work within 28 days. It took the Council 17 months to produce a quote. While I appreciate the Council said it had a backlog and resourcing issues, this is a significant delay and amounts to fault.
27. Not only was the Council responsible for a significant delay, but it also failed to respond to Mr X’s requests for updates. In circumstances where the Council knew it had a backlog and faced resourcing issues, we would expect it to communicate this to applicants or display a message on its website. The Council was therefore at fault for poor communication. This caused Mr X prolonged frustration over many months, and he was put to avoidable time and trouble trying to contact the Council.
28. When Mr X complained, the Council was responsible for further delays. It aims to respond to stage two complaints within 28 days. However, it took the Council more than five months. That was fault and it caused Mr X further frustration.
29. The Council produced a quote of £1,900 for the work using 2023 rates. It told Mr X it could not apply 2022 rates because that would not cover the Council’s costs to carry out the work. This caused Mr X distress. He felt frustration, as the quote would have been lower but for the Council’s delays, and he felt penalised for this.
30. The Council confirmed the actual estimated costs of the work, using 2023 prices, is £1,856.21. It added an administration fee taking the cost up to £1,900. I found there is a lack of transparency over the Council’s fees. The quote it sent Mr X is a standalone, rounded, figure. There is no breakdown of the costs and no mention of an administration fee. The Council should give customers details of how it calculated their quote, in the same way as it did for my investigation.
31. The Council’s website tells customers they will have to pay an application fee, but it is silent about administration fees for the quote. In this case, it appears the Council has rounded the quote up to the nearest hundred when adding the administration fee. That approach means people may be charged different administration fees for essentially the same work. The Council should either charge a standard administration fee at the quote stage, or one based on the actual administrative time/work incurred. It should also tell customers about this administration fee on its website.
32. When the Ombudsman identifies fault causing injustice, we try to put people back into the position they would have been in if the fault had not occurred. Mr X applied for a crossover extension in March 2022, meaning he should have been eligible for 2022 price rates. Even allowing the Council some leeway beyond its target of 28 days, to account for the backlog and resourcing issues, it should have been able to produce a quote before the end of 2022. The Council should therefore offer to do the work based on its 2022 price rates.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr X for its significant delays and poor communication, and pay him £250 in recognition of the avoidable distress he suffered.
• Provide Mr X a new quote for the dropped kerb extension using 2022 price rates.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I completed my investigation. The Council was at fault for significant delays quoting for the vehicle crossover extension work, and in responding to Mr X’s complaint. This caused Mr X avoidable distress which the Council agreed to remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman