Summary: We find fault with the Council for its handling of Mrs X’s request for an I-Bar to be painted next to a dropped kerb outside her property. This has contributed to Mrs X’s property and driveway being obstructed. The Council has agreed to apologise, carry out the agreed work and make a financial payment to Mrs X for the distress caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her I-Bar installation. She says the Council has unreasonably shortened the length of her I-Bar.
2. Mrs X said she paid for the I-Bar and agreed a length with the Council, however it then painted a shorter one. Mrs X says this now causes obstruction as people park across her driveway.
3. Mrs X would like the Council to repaint the I-Bar according to the original agreement.

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 an injustice, 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 Mrs X and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I invited Mrs X and the Council to comment on my draft decision and considered any comment received.

Back to top

What I found

8. The Council’s website says "I" bars are used as an advisory marking to highlight a private entrance where vehicular access is required. Any parked vehicle parked across an access is classed as an obstruction and as such can only be dealt with by the Police. However, obstruction in residential areas is mainly caused by residents or neighbours. Every effort should be made between the parties involved to resolve the situation as provision of an "I" bar is unlikely to solve the problem. Priority consideration will be given to residents who have a disability.

What happened

9. Mrs X applied for an extension to the dropped kerb on the pavement outside her house. The Council approved the application and sent Mrs X an invoice for the work titled “construction of vehicle crossing”. Mrs X paid the invoice and the Council and carried out the work. The work took the length of the dropped kerb to the same point as Mrs X’s property boundary line.
10. Mrs X then applied to the Council for an I-Bar to be painted along the dropped kerb. Mrs X did this to as a preventative measure to stop her neighbours parking over the dropped kerb, which prevented her from being able to access and leave her driveway.
11. The Council accepted the application for the I-Bar and visited the site. It told Mrs X the length of the I-Bar would be from boundary line to boundary line, crossing all the dropped kerb.
12. When Council contractors arrived to paint the I-Bar, Mrs X’s neighbour refused to move his vehicle from being parked over the dropped kerb, and the contractors could not carry out the work.
13. The Council told Mrs X it would carry out a further site visit. Mrs X told the Council officer she was unavailable on this day of the site visit but that she was still happy for them to attend.
14. The Council carried out the site visit for the I-Bar. Multiple Council officers attended. During the meeting, Mrs X’s neighbour refused to move his vehicle from over the dropped kerb and spoke to the Council officers about his views on whether the I-Bar should be implemented.
15. During the visit, the Council marked out where it would place the I-Bar. The Council placed two markers down which were significantly shorter than it had previously told Mrs X the I-Bar would be. This was in part because the neighbour had refused to move their vehicle.
16. Mrs X wrote to the Council and said she was unhappy with the markings for the proposed I-Bar. She said it was significantly shorter that previously agreed, and that she couldn’t understand why the Council had allowed her neighbour to dictate the length of the I-Bar for access to her house.
17. The Council told Mrs X that in deciding to shorten the I-Bar length, it had considered the need for parking, and for pedestrian access. It said it would put the work on hold until it reached an agreement with Mrs X about where to place it.
18. Mrs X complained to the Council. In her complaint she said

• she is frequently blocked in by her neighbours who park over her driveway and the dropped kerb.
• She applied to the Council to extend the dropped kerb to improve access to her driveway because of the restrictions caused by her neighbours. The Council agreed to this and carried out the extension of the dropped kerb.
• Mrs X’s neighbours continued to park over the driveway and the dropped kerb, and the Police and Council would not take action, so she applied for an I-Bar.
• She received an invoice from the Council that was titled “construction of vehicle crossing”. Mrs X paid the invoice and therefore believed it was a contract between herself and the Council for the work of the dropped kerb and I-Bar implementation.
• The Council had wrongly allowed Mrs X’s neighbour to object to the I-Bar, and by shortening the length of the I-Bar, the Council has allowed Mrs X’s neighbour to continue to park over the dropped kerb and her driveway.
• The compromise the Council suggested does not account for the angle of the driveways and the markings go against it, restricting Mrs X’s access further.
• Several Council officers had a meeting about Mrs X’s I-Bar without her present, and with her neighbour attending.
• The Council had told Mrs X the length of the I-Bar would be the minimum, which is 4.5 metres across.

19. The Council’s final response to Mrs X said

• The purpose of the I-Bar service is to provide an advisory marking where residents access is frequently obstructed. The I-Bar is installed to the full extent of the vehicle crossing which is denoted by the shoulders of the footway. As Mrs X’s road has no footway, the I-Bar will be placed to allow off-street parking.
• The Council had told Mrs X a compromise may be required. In this case, the work was not for a vehicle crossing, but to ensure pedestrian access, and it was sorry for the miscommunication.
• The Council had provided notice of the site visit and the meeting was carried out objectively and fairly. The Council had taken on board the need to have unobstructed access to off street parking for all residents, and allow for on street parking for residents and visitors. The Council felt the length of the shortened I-Bar provided this, and fulfils its purpose of allowing Mrs X access, while still allowing on street parking.
• The amendment to the original plan was a fair resolution but the Council will put the installation on hold until Mrs X and her neighbour have come to an agreement.

20. Mrs X told the Council to put installing the I-Bar on hold until a resolution was reached, and the Council confirmed it would.
21. Following Mrs X’s complaint, Council contractors painted the I-Bar outside Mrs X’s house. The length of the I-Bar was the significantly reduced length. The angle of the ends of the I-Bar also pointed inwards towards Mrs X’s house.
22. Mrs X raised with the Council, who apologised the work had gone ahead despite it being on hold. It said it would amend the angle of the end of the I-Bar, but not the length, which it did.
23. Mrs X remained unhappy with the Council’s actions and bought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

24. The invoice issued to Mrs X stated the work was for “vehicle access”. This is the work the Council said it would do, that Mrs X agreed to pay for. Mrs X did not apply for, or agree to pay for pedestrian access, which is what the Council said the I-Bar now provides. Additionally, the Council told Mrs X the I-Bar would be 4.5 metres at minimum, and this does not appear to be the case. It is my current view this is fault by the Council as it has not carried out the work it agreed to do when charging Mrs X.
25. Mrs X has provided evidence to the Ombudsman of vehicles blocking her in driveway by parking across the dropped kerb and up to the end of the I-Bar. This includes during stressful family emergencies when she could not leave. I am satisfied that Mrs X has been able to show the length of the smaller I-Bar does not fulfil its purpose by still allowing her unrestricted access, as the Council says it does.
26. Mrs X has shown that she has tried using alternative methods of trying to resolve the issues with her neighbours parking via the Council and the Police, but this has not worked. I appreciate the Council’s view is that obstruction of Mrs X’s driveway is a Police matter, however, it remains that the shorter I-Bar provides a reference point which vehicles are using to obstruct Mrs X’s driveway.
27. The Council has said the shorter length is a compromise, however this was as a result of Mrs X’s neighbour refusing to move his vehicle. The I-Bar did not need planning permission or consultation with Mrs X’s neighbours, however I appreciate the Council listened to the views given. If the original intention was for a longer I-bar but this was deliberately blocked by Mrs X’s neighbour, the Council as highways authority should have used its powers to ensure the works could be completed as originally intended.
28. The Council also agreed to put the works on hold as it could not reach an agreement, but went ahead and completed the works regardless. This was further fault by the Council which has caused injustice and distress to Mrs X.

Back to top

Agreed Action

29. Within four weeks the Council has agreed to

• Write to Mrs X and provide an apology for the fault identified.
• Pay Mrs X £100 for the distress caused.
• Install the I-Bar as originally agreed.

30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

31. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman