Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to waive or contribute to the costs of widening his vehicle crossover. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council refused to waive or contribute towards costs he incurred for widening his vehicle crossover. Mr X said the widening is required because of the Council’s decision to place a bollard on the highway verge, outside his property.
2. Mr X also complained about how the Council handled his complaint.
3. Mr X said he has suffered a financial impact, because of the Council’s decision to place the bollard.

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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))
5. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X previously complained to the Ombudsman about the Council’s decision to install a bollard along the highway verge, outside of his property. We decided not to investigate that complaint because there was not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
9. Mr X has since decided to widen his vehicle crossover. He said this is because the Council installed the bollard, without any good reasons for doing so. He said this caused damage to his vehicle when entering his driveway.
10. Mr X asked the Council to waive fees or contribute towards costs for widening his vehicle crossover. The Council refused to do so and said those costs were Mr X’s responsibility.
11. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating this complaint. We cannot tell the Council it should waive or contribute to Mr X’s costs and there is no other worthwhile outcome achievable.
12. Mr X continues to dispute the Council’s decision to place the bollard close to his home. However, our previous decision that there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in placing it there remains the same.
13. As we will not investigate the substantive matters of the complaint, we will not investigate the Council’s handling of the complaint because it is not proportionate to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman