Summary: Mr X complained the Council has unfairly quoted him for his dropped kerb. We find the Council was at fault for failing to be open and transparent with Mr X about why his quote was significantly more expensive than his neighbour’s. This caused Mr X frustration and led to confusion. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for this injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has unfairly quoted him for his dropped kerb. He says the Council has charged him a lot more than his neighbour even though they have the same circumstances.
2. Mr X says he is financially worse off because of the Council’s faults.

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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. 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

Relevant guidance

7. Our Principles of Good Administrative Practice sets out our expectations of councils. We expect councils to be open and clear about policies and procedures. We also expect councils to state the criteria for decision making and give reasons for decisions.

What happened

8. Mr X applied to the Council for a dropped kerb in September 2024. The Council visited the site to assess the work. It provided Mr X with a quote of £13,558.15 in December.
9. Mr X emailed the Council and said it quoted his neighbour £8,158.40 in March 2024. He said both him and his neighbour had the same circumstances and so he could not understand why his quote was so much higher. The Council responded and said a tree root prune and small utilities box adjustment was required on his application. This incurred additional costs. It said it could not discuss details of other customers quotes due to confidentiality reasons.
10. Mr X continued to dispute his quote. He said both him and his neighbour had trees which the Council had to remove for the dropped kerb. He said his internet provider said there was no need to adjust the utilities box. Finally, he said his neighbour was happy to provide her written consent to discuss her quote in more detail. The Council responded and said it could only work with its approved contractor. It said it was considering the process of procuring new contractors to an approved list which would encourage competitive rates in the future.

Back to top

Analysis

11. The crux of Mr X’s complaint is that he does not believe the Council has quoted him fairly in comparison to his neighbour. He says the Council said his quote was more expensive because of the tree and the small utilities box. He says both him and his neighbour have trees, and therefore the only difference is the utilities box. He does not believe the additional cost to deal with the box should be over £5,000.
12. When the Council responded to my enquiries, it explained the difference in quotes is mainly due to the timing of the application. It processed Mr X’s neighbour’s application under a legacy system before it transferred the service to its network management and highway approvals team. It said it developed a new compliant procurement route that met legal and safety standards. This has led to higher costs. Mr X’s and his neighbour’s quote would be similar if they were processed under the same system.
13. I am satisfied the Council has now explained the difference in Mr X’s and his neighbour’s quote. However, it failed to be open and transparent with Mr X about why his quote was more expensive. This is not in line with Our Principles of Good Administrative Practice. I appreciate the Council may not be able to provide detailed information about other customers quotes. However, it should have explained to Mr X about the timing of his application and the introduction of a new system which had an impact on costs. The Council’s failure to explain this to Mr X caused him frustration and led to confusion. It should apologise to Mr X for this injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

14. By 16 October 2025 the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the frustration and confusion caused by failing to be open and transparent with him.
15. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Decision

16. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr X an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendation and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman