Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council narrowed the width of his dropped kerb after it reinstated a footway. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had narrowed the width of his dropped kerb after it completed improvements to the footway. He said the new width made access to his driveway difficult and caused damage to his vehicle. He wants the Council to increase the width of his dropped kerb.

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 continue 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council narrowed the width of Mr X’s dropped kerb following improvements to the footway. In the Council’s complaint response, it confirmed it had undertaken a site inspection of the kerb. It said it had reinstated the dropped kerb to its previous width. It explained that a cornerstone of the previous kerb had become displaced by vehicles driving over it; therefore, when it reinstated the dropped kerb, it needed to restore that kerbstone to its original position. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has reinstated the dropped kerb to justify our involvement.
6. The Council said the width of Mr X’s access was restricted because of a telecommunications pole and box. It said he would need to apply to the telecommunications company if he wanted these repositioning. It also provided advice as to how he could apply to the Council to widen the dropped kerb. The Council has set out the steps Mr X would need to take to apply for widening his access. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman