The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not advise him of extra costs associated with his application for a dropped kerb. He says he had to pay an extra £1,500 to a utility company to lower a duct box and may not have gone ahead with the work if he had known. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the information the Council provided to Mr B.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, complains about how the Council handled his application for a dropped kerb. He says the Council did not advise him there would be extra costs for lowering a duct box that belonged to an internet provider. Mr B says that, had he known about the extra costs, he probably would not have gone ahead with the work.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information Mr B provided and spoke to him about the complaint, then made enquiries of the Council. I sent a copy of my enquiries to Mr B and the Council for their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Council procedures The Council has a Vehicle Access Crossing policy. At Section 4 it sets out the criteria the Council will consider when deciding whether to approve an application. This includes ‘existing highway amenities’.
The policy says there may be assets in the public footway that do not belong to the Council such as utility apparatus. It says there may be additional work required to lower the apparatus. It says the Highways Team will liaise with the asset owner and advise the applicant of what is required and the additional cost. Before the work is undertaken, the applicant will be required to pay the asset owner and provide evidence to the Highways Team.
At Section 7, the policy says applicants who receive approval for a crossing will initially be recommended to have the work completed by the Council. It says a quotation for the work will be provided. However, if the applicant prefers, they have the option to have the work done by a private contractor. The contractor must adhere to the Council’s highway specification and the applicant must provide evidence of the contractor’s public liability insurance.
The Council also has standard terms and conditions relating to the construction of vehicle access crossings by private contractors. At condition 10 it says, ‘Should it be necessary to alter a surface box belonging to one or more of the Statutory Authorities (Gas, Water etc) both this office and the appropriate authority must be notified before work commences.’
Background
In 2021 Mr B applied for a dropped kerb to allow access to parking at the front of his property. A council officer visited the property to assess the application. The Council says that at this visit the officer gave Mr B its contractor terms and conditions. Mr B says the Council did not provide any information and did not tell him it was necessary to lower the internet duct box.
The Council then provided Mr B with a quote of around £1,700 for the work. The quote did not include lowering the internet duct box. The Council says this is because the box was located on a grass verge, and it was not clear at that point whether it would need to lower this. It said, if it started the works and found this did need to be lowered, then the costs for lowering the box would have been absorbed by the Council and not necessarily passed back to Mr B.
Mr B obtained a quote from a private contractor and decided to use the contractor rather than the Council to complete the work. The Council told Mr B it was fine for him to use the contractor, but he needed to send a copy of their public liability insurance. The Council says it also asked Mr B to confirm who the contractor was and when they would start the works. It says this did not happen. Mr B says he did send the Council a copy of the public liability insurance. He says it did not respond so he went ahead with the works.
The works were completed with lowering the internet duct box. The duct box was therefore raised above the dropped pavement. Mr B was concerned this represented a trip hazard so contacted the Council. The Council agreed it was a trip hazard and asked Mr B to either contact the internet provider to arrange for it to be lowered, or to arrange to raise the pavement back to its original level.
Mr B contacted the internet provider, who provided a quote for lowering the duct box of around £1,500.
Mr B complained to the Council. He said the Council had not advised him the duct box would need to be lowered, or that there was an added cost for this. He said that if he had known he may have decided not to go ahead with the dropped kerb. The Council did not uphold Mr B’s complaint. It said Mr B had gone ahead with the works illegally by using a contractor without confirming permission from the Council.
Findings
I do not find fault in the information the Council provided to Mr B.
The Council’s vehicle crossing policy says it will advise the resident of any work needed to lower utility apparatus, and the cost. The Council says it did not do so in this case as it was not certain if lowering the duct box was necessary. It is not clear why the Council was not certain if the box needed to be lowered. I can see from the photos the duct box was in the location of the works and higher than the road height. It might be the eventual works were wider than the plan proposed by the Council. But this is not completely clear from the plans. Even if the Council was not sure, it may have been good practice to tell Mr B there was a chance it would need to be lowered and what the cost would be if that happened.
However, had Mr B engaged the Council to do the works, and it did so without telling him about the extra costs, it says it would have considered absorbing those costs. Instead, Mr B used a private contractor to complete the work. That contractor was responsible for providing Mr B with a plan and quote for full works they would complete. The contractor was also responsible for completing the works to a safe standard, in line with any local requirements. This means the contractor should not have completed the work, leaving the duct box above ground as a trip hazard. The contractor should have identified this issue as part of their plan of works, in the same way the Council should have done. This would have brought it to Mr B’s attention that the box needed to be lowered, before going ahead with the work.
I can see the Council said it was fine for Mr B to use a contractor if he provided the contractor’s public liability insurance and a proposed start date. Mr B has provided an email the contractor sent to the Council with proof of liability insurance. However, the email did not include a start date. It also did not include Mr B’s name, the address of the works, or any information about why the contractor was sending the insurance document to the Council. Therefore, I can understand why the Council may not have understood this was for the works to Mr B’s property, and therefore did not consider Mr B gained the necessary approval to continue.
Either way, Mr B received two plans and two quotes. Neither included the lowering of the duct box. Had Mr B engaged the Council to do the work and it completed this while leaving a trip hazard, then only afterwards told Mr B about the extra costs, he would have a clear complaint against the Council. As it is, he used a private contractor who left a trip hazard and did not tell him about the extra costs of removing this. In line with the Council’s contractor conditions, the contractor should have informed the Council and utility company if it was necessary to alter a surface box, before they completed the works. Therefore, any complaint about the extra costs incurred is between Mr B and the contractor.
Final decision
The Council is not at fault in the information it provided to Mr B.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman