Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to allow a dropped kerb to be installed close to her home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making, and we cannot achieve the outcome sought by Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council allowed a dropped kerb to be installed close to her home and that it poses risks to the safety of her family.
2. Miss X said the decision to allow the dropped kerb negatively impacted the mental health of her family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
  (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. Miss X said the Council did not consider the health and safety implications to her family by allowing the dropped kerb.
8. The Council and its contractor carried out separate site visits. One before the dropped kerb was installed and one following the Miss X’s complaint about safety risks.
9. The available evidence suggests the application for the dropped kerb met the requirements set out in the Council’s policy. The Council said the safety of pedestrians and vehicles using the dropped kerb is a necessary consideration of the policy and it had considered these matters when it visited the site.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
11. While I recognise Miss X’s concerns about safety outside her home, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to warrant our involvement. The Council acted in line with its policy and set out its reasons for allowing the application.
12. In any case, Miss X wants the Council to remove the dropped kerb. We cannot achieve this outcome. Therefore, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making, and we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman