Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the installation of a dropped kerb outside her property. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide sufficient information about the aesthetics of a dropped kerb she paid to have installed outside her property. She said the surrounding pavement was not resurfaced, meaning it was visually inconsistent.
2. Mrs X said this caused emotional distress. She said this also caused financial concern as she would need to pay an additional £594.96 to have this corrected to what she considered a suitable standard.
3. Mrs X wanted the Council to:
• complete the additional resurfacing works at no extra cost, or
• make a reasonable contribution to the cost;
• review how these works are explained to residents in the future; and
• acknowledge its shortcomings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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

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. The Council quoted Mrs X £2,046.24 for installing a dropped kerb outside her property, which she accepted. Once the works were completed, Mrs X said she was unhappy with the appearance of the surrounding pavement, which had not been resurfaced.
8. The Council considered and responded to Mrs X’s concerns. It explained before the works were completed, she was informed white spray marks had been left on the pavement to show the size and position of the intended dropped kerb. However, she did not raise any concerns at the time.
9. The Council added if Mrs X wanted the additional area to be resurfaced, she could pay £594.96 for this to be completed.
10. We will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the service provider.
11. This means that we will normally only investigate a complaint where:
• the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the Council, or
• there are continuous and ongoing instances of lower-level injustice that remain unresolved over a long period of time.
12. We will not normally investigate a complaint where:
• the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter, or
• the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice, distress and loss, but those events cannot be shown to be directly the result of the actions or omissions of the Council.
13. Mrs X said the kerb is not visually pleasing, and she would need to pay an additional cost of £594.96 to have this amended. It is Mrs X’s decision whether to incur this additional cost. It is also unlikely we would say the additional cost was an injustice directly caused by the Council.
14. We will not investigate this complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and any injustice is not significant enough to justify investigation.
15. Mrs X’s complaint could be considered a compensation claim for works she alleges were not carried out to the required standard. It is open to Mrs X to seek legal advice if she believes the Council should be liable for the cost of remedial works.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman