Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered Mr X’s report of an obsolete dropped kerb near his property. We do not consider the Council’s actions amount to a fault that justifies an investigation. Nor do we consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council mishandled his report about an obsolete dropped kerb. He says the Council initially told him incorrectly that the dropped kerb was on private land. He says the delay wasted his time. And the unresolved parking issues are causing parking pressure on a congested street.

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 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council says it initially misidentified the location of the dropped kerb because of differences between on-street road names and online mapping. The Council confirmed initial confusion as to the location of the dropped kerb due to street signs being different to online mapping. This led it to believe the site is on a private road which it is not responsible for.
6. However, following discussions with Mr X, the Council identified the correct location. It decided the dropped kerb as it exists has no harmful impact on safety.
7. It says there is no evidence it is damaged or unsafe for use. It further advised Mr X the sign he refers to in his report is on private property and the Council has no obligation to consider it and has no authority to remove it.
8. I understand Mr X may have been frustrated by the initial misidentification of the site and resulting delay in considering his concern. However, I do not consider this has caused him to suffer a significant injustice. It remains the Council has considered the correct site and explained why it will not take any action.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we do not consider the Council’s initial misidentification of the site to amount to a fault that justifies an investigation. Nor do we consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman