Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to extend the complainant’s dropped kerb and move a streetlight. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains that the Council will not upgrade her dropped kerb and move a streetlight.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I looked at images of Mrs X’s dropped kerb, before and after she paved the drive, and considered the dropped kerb guidance. I also considered comments Mrs X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. Mrs X moved into her home in 2016. I have seen a photograph which shows there was a dropped kerb that extended the width of the drive and a streetlight at the edge of the drive.
5. In 2018 Mrs X paved the whole area at the front of her house (paved what could be called the front garden). She did not change the dropped kerb and the streetlight stayed in the same position. Although the whole area is now paved Mrs X can only access the hardstanding via the dropped kerb.
6. Mrs X asked the Council to upgrade the dropped kerb so it meets the current requirements and is wider. She also asked it to move the streetlight. Mrs X explained that the dropped kerb does not meet the current requirements, is dangerous and makes it hard for her to safely use her drive. She says she is forced to drive over her neighbour’s drive.
7. In response the Council explained that the dropped kerb was built before 2002 when different standards for dropped kerbs applied. It agreed that Mrs X’s dropped kerb does not meet current standards but it was built in accordance with the standards that applied when it was built. It explained that applications are assessed against the rules in force when the application is made and there is no requirement for the Council to upgrade historic dropped kerbs so that they meet current standards. It said Mrs X could apply to extend her dropped kerb but it would be at her expense.
8. The Council also explained that the streetlight had never moved from its original location. It said Mrs X could apply for the light to be moved but, again, she would have to pay for the work. The Council told Mrs X that a highways engineer had inspected her drive and he had not identified any safety concerns regarding the use of the dropped kerb.
9. Mrs X is dissatisfied with the response. She says the dropped kerb does not meet the current specifications. She wants the Council to upgrade it and move the streetlight.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. There is no requirement for the Council to move the light, or extend the dropped kerb, regardless of what changes Mrs X makes to her property. Mrs X can apply to upgrade the dropped kerb, or move the light, but she would have to pay for the work. There is no requirement for the Council to pay.
11. The dropped kerb was built before 2002 when different specifications applied. Every application is assessed against the current standard which means that, across the council area, there will be many dropped kerbs built to different standards. It would not be feasible for the Council to continually upgrade dropped kerbs to meet current standards and there is no requirement for it to do so. In addition, the Council is not required to make changes to the public highway, including moving a streetlight, to accommodate changes a householder has chosen to make to their property.
12. Mrs X says she has had restricted access to her home since she moved in. However, as the dropped kerb and light have not changed since she moved in during 2016, it was open to Mrs X not to buy the house if she thought it was unsuitable for her needs.
13. Mrs X asks what she should say if her neighbour objects to Mrs X driving over the neighbouring drive. This, though, is a civil matter between neighbours and not one that I can comment on. I can only consider if there has been fault by the Council and I have not seen any suggestion of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman