Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a dropped kerb. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions or of significant injustice to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about a pedestrian crossing point. He said this was incorrectly being used by other people as a vehicle crossing point. He was concerned about risk to pedestrians and damage to the highway. He wanted the Council to stop individuals driving over the dropped kerb until they had sought the correct planning permissions to use it as a vehicle crossing point.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X asked the Council to prevent people using a dropped kerb as a vehicle crossing point until the correct planning permission was in place. He complained he had to go through planning permission for his own dropped kerb and felt it was unfair that others did not have to do the same.
6. The Council responded to Mr X and told him it had completed a site visit and decided it would monitor the highway for any damage in-line with its usual approach and take action if needed. It said it decided not to take any enforcement action in response to Mr X’s complaint.
7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because, although he has raised concerns about potential damage to the highway and risks to pedestrians, he has not suffered any personal injustice because of the Council’s actions and any injustice caused by concerns of inequity are not significant enough to warrant an investigation by us.
8. We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern but where they have not suffered injustice.
9. Although I accept Mr X feels it is unfair, the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against others for not seeking planning permission is not a personal injustice to Mr X.
10. Additionally, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. The Council has told Mr X it completed a site visit and decided to monitor the highway for damage in-line with its usual approach. It said any concerns will be dealt with under this process. This is a proportionate response by the Council to deal with any concerns of potential damage to the highway caused by vehicles driving over the crossing.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions or of significant injustice to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman