Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s quote for a dropped kerb extension. The is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the level of the Council’s quote for an extension to his existing dropped kerb. The Council said the works would cost £1650. This is because it would require the removal and replacement of the existing dropped kerb stones which are obsolete and for the existing pavement slabs to be removed and replaced with asphalt. Mr X says the Council has not applied its policy proportionately, has not applied discretion and has shifted the cost of policy changes to residents. He says it has also ignored the fact his existing dropped kerb is narrower than others locally and is not fully functional as a result.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council about the matter set out in paragraph one, above.
8. The Council told Mr X that the existing kerb stones in place are obsolete and that, in line with its policy, which applies to all applicants, Mr X would need to pay for them to be replaced with materials that are currently available. It explained the pavement needed to be replaced with asphalt because the existing pavement is made of concrete flag stones. It does not construct or extend dropped kerbs over concrete flag stones due to maintenance implications.
9. The Council considered Mr X’s request to consider a revised, lower quote but explained its reasons for not doing so in line with its policy and in order to maintain a fair and consistent approach to all applicants.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because, whilst I acknowledge Mr X is dissatisfied with the Council’s decision, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant a further investigation. It reached a decision in line with its policy and it has clearly explained its reasons. It is one it is entitled to make.
11. Mr X says the works he requested are small scale, however the Council has explained all the work required to achieve this extension and has quoted accordingly. The Council has confirmed that where alterations such as this are requested by a resident they must be suitable for use by the public, be efficiently maintainable and be paid for entirely by the applicant including any necessary complimentary works that may be required due to their request.
12. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council’s decision to decide if it was right or wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decision. If, as here, we consider there was no fault in the way the decision was made we cannot question the decision.
13. Mr X says the Council has ignored that his dropped kerb is narrower than those installed nearby and is not fully functional. The Council confirmed it was installed in line with the style and standard at the time it was built, over 25 years ago, and with others locally. Policies will evolve and change over time and so the existing dropped kerb entrance may not be as wide as it would be if installed now. This is not due to any fault by the Council and it is not responsible for funding or reducing the cost of the extension works.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman