Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the build quality Council’s completion of a dropped kerb vehicle crossing. Further investigation of this matter would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the quality of workmanship when he had a dropped kerb access provided by the Council so that he could have a vehicle crossing to his home. He says the kerbstones are poorly aligned and infilled and that the work is unacceptable.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he paid over £1,900 for a dropped kerb access to his home. When the Council’s contractor installed the crossing he was dissatisfied with the build quality complaining that the kerbstones were poorly aligned hand had noticeable gaps.
6. He complained about the works to the Council and it inspected and arranged for some remedial work to be carried out. Mr X remained unhappy with the crossing which he says looks badly finished and not value for the money he paid. The Council told him that it is satisfied the crossing meets structural and safety standards and its technical specifications. However, it agreed to monitor the installation should it prove unsuitable over time.
7. 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, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. The Council is the highway authority and the installation and ownership of the crossing is within the public highway and is the property of the highway authority. It is the authority responsible for inspecting the suitability of highway infrastructure and if it is satisfied with the works Mr X has no appeal against its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the build quality Council’s completion of a dropped kerb vehicle crossing. Further investigation of this matter would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman