Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s policy of charging for the repainting of the H-bar across the dropped kerb at the end of his drive. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says under section 130 of the Highways Act 1980, the Council has a duty to prevent the obstruction caused by cars frequently parking across the dropped kerb at the end of his drive and that it should do this by repainting, at no charge to him, the H-Bar across the kerb.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X has been told by the Council that under its policy, published in 2020, if he wants the H-bar at the end of his drive repainted across the dropped kerb, he will have to pay in accordance with the set charges.
8. Mr X complained about this to the Council, claiming its statutory duties under highways legislation means it has a duty to provide the H-bar to prevent the obstruction caused by vehicles frequently parking across his drive. He said the repainting of it should be done free of charge.
9. The Council responded by explaining why the policy had been introduced. It told him it did not accept his view that it had not met its legal obligations and concluded there had been no fault or service failure on the part of the Council.
10. While I understand Mr X does not agree with the Council’s charging policy in connection with H-bars, we are not an appeal body and it is not our role to review the merits of this policy. The Council’s Legal Services team is satisfied with the Council’s position and if Mr X wants to challenge its legal interpretation of the legislation, it is open to him to do so through the courts.
11. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says he is questioning the legality of the Council’s policy and that the Council is at fault if it fails to carry out a duty under an Act of Parliament. He believes that highway legislation provides a statutory duty on the Council to prevent the obstruction caused by cars parking over the dropped kerb by painting an H-bar. This is not the Council’s view and it is not one I share. However, if Mr X wants to challenge the Council’s interpretation of the relevant legislation he can do so through the courts.
12. Mr X also says the Council referred to the wrong legislation in responding to his complaint and that it subsequently changed its reference to it. However, this would not be fault significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman