Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council handled her dropped kerb application. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council delayed the installation of a dropped kerb after approving her application and accepting payment. She said the delay caused financial difficulties and negatively impacted her and her daughter’s access.
2. Mrs X wanted the Council to complete the installation of the dropped kerb without any additional cost to her.

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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council approved Mrs X’s application for a dropped kerb and accepted payment for the works.
7. However, before the installation could proceed, it became apparent that underground utility cables were located within the proposed construction area.
8. The utility company responsible for the cables advised that protective works or alterations were required before the dropped kerb could be installed. The company estimated these works would cost approximately £12,000.
9. Mrs X says she has also incurred additional expenses associated with surveys carried out in relation to the proposal.
10. The evidence shows the Council has been exploring alternative solutions, both internally and with the utility company, to try to avoid or reduce the significant additional costs that may otherwise fall to Mrs X.
11. While this process has resulted in a delay, the delay has arisen because of the unforeseen presence of third-party utility cables and the Council’s efforts to identify a more affordable solution. The utility company’s requirements and associated costs are matters outside of the Council’s control.
12. The Council acknowledged the delay had caused distress for Mrs X and it apologised. However, the Council has continued to communicate with the utility company in response to circumstances that emerged after the application was approved.
13. In these circumstances, further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to the investigation conducted by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her dropped kerb application. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman