Summary: There was fault by the Council. The construction of a dropped kerb took longer than the timescale advised to the homeowner. No notice was given of the work starting and Mr X was not told the dropped kerb would be smaller than the Council approved until the work was underway. An apology, payment and review of procedures remedies the injustice caused by the delay and changes to the work.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complains the Council delayed constructing a dropped kerb outside his home.
2. Mr X says the Council did not tell him the dropped kerb width would be reduced from that agreed before construction started and he had no notice before of the work starting.
3. Mr X says his car was trapped on the drive for 5 days, he was frustrated at the lack of communication by the Council and the dropped kerb that was constructed is smaller than the one the Council approved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr X has a house with a dropped kerb so he can park on the front. Mr X applied to the Council on 19 December 2024 to extend the dropped kerb and paid the £125 inspection fee.
9. On 23 January 2025 the Council confirmed the dropped kerb was approved and sent a quote. Mr X told the Council the hardstanding was completed on 5 March 2025 and paid £5237 on 18 April. The Council said the construction of the dropped kerb could take up to 16 weeks to start. Mr X made a formal complaint when the work had not started after 16 weeks.
10. On 22 October 2025 the Council advertised a traffic order. Work started on 15 December 2025. Mr X was not notified of the start of works and dropped kerb was 2.4 metres rather than the 3.3 metres he expected.
11. There was delay in constructing the dropped kerb, in relation to the Council’s advised timescales. And the Council wrongly told Mr X that he could have a 3.3 metre dropped kerb when only 2.4 metres was permissible under its policy. The Council also failed to tell Mr X of the works starting.
12. Mr X has said the works are now complete. But I do consider the work was delayed and not as he was expecting. There was also poor communication by the Council. This caused Mr X injustice. He paid out a significant sum of money which the Council held for almost a year before completing the works. He says that his car was trapped on the drive for 5 days as he wasn’t told the works were starting and the dropped kerb was shorter than he was originally quoted for.
13. To remedy the injustice, the Council should pay £1000 to Mr X to reflect his distress from the delayed works, inconvenience and poor communication. The payment also remedies the injustice that the dropped kerb constructed is smaller than the Council approved and he was not told of this until the works were underway. This meant he had no chance to cancel the works and get a refund if the amended scheme was not suitable.

Back to top

Action

14. Within one month of the date of the decision on this complaint the Council should:
• Apologise to Mr X. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Mr X £1000.
• Review its procedures to ensure that residents are given an accurate estimation of the time a dropped kerb will take and are kept informed during the process of any changes.
• Review its procedures to ensure that a check is put in place to ensure that works are not approved that do not comply with the Council’s policy.
15. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

16. I have completed my investigation and find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman