The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs D complained the Council failed to properly install the correct number of dropped kerbs at her property. She was unhappy with the specifications and said this was not what she asked for or agreed. She also said the Council did not consider her needs when assessing her application and were rude when she complained. We find no fault with how the Council considered Mrs D’s application or in its decision making. We make no finding on Mrs D’s complaint the Council was rude.
The complaint
Mrs D complained the Council failed to properly install a vehicle crossing (I will call this a dropped kerb throughout this statement) to the rear of her property. She was unhappy with the quality of the work and the number of installed kerbs and said this was not what she asked for. Mrs D said she believed the Council had agreed she needed four dropped kerbs for her to access her driveway without hitting the kerb. Mrs D says this caused her confusion, unable to use her driveway as planned and put her to the time and trouble of making a complaint.
She also complained the Council did not properly consider her application and were rude to her when she complained. Mrs D says this caused her distress.
She wants the Council to change its decision and approve a further dropped kerb. Alternatively, she wants the Council to refund her for the expense on works.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) If we are satisfied with a council’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 have spoken with Mrs D and reviewed all the documentation she has sent in support of her complaint. I have also made enquiries with the Council and reviewed all the documentation it has sent.
Mrs D and the Council have commented on the draft decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.
Legislation and Guidance The Council’s Website Guidance on Vehicle Crossings The Council defines a vehicle crossing as being “when a kerb is lowered and the footpath strengthened, to let vehicles move between roads and properties.
The Council’s application for a dropped kerb is a two-stage process where: The resident makes an application to the Council for its consent and approval of a vehicle crossing/dropped kerb; and The resident books a contractor to conduct the work and checks the construction of the vehicle crossing/dropped kerb.
The Council must be satisfied the application meets the standards of its criteria. The applicant will need to pay an administrative fee and provide the Council with sketches, plans, photographs, and copies of any relevant planning permissions.
The Council’s Policy The policy on vehicle crossings adopted in 2009 limits the amount of dropped kerbs to five and two ramped kerbs in a specified area.
The Council’s Practice Note on Vehicle Crossing Procedures and Appendices The Council adopted this policy in 2018 and says extensions to vehicle crossings are limited to a maximum of five dropped kerbs to avoid the situation where the property’s entire front is lowered.
What I found
Mrs D made an online application to the Council in September 2021 asking for three to four dropped kerbs behind her property. This was to help her move her car onto her driveway.
Mrs D supplied the Council with drawings, photographs, and a plan of the location in support of her application.
The Council approved Mrs D’s application, following a desk top review and a visit to the proposed site. It says it wrote to Mrs D and told her it had allowed “3 low kerbs and 1 ramp.”
The Council said Mrs D did not comment on its email approval. It also said she did not express any concerns about the number of dropped kerbs or ramps it had allowed during the application or before the works were conducted.
The Council granted a permit for Mrs D’s contractor to undertake the works in November 2021.
The Council said the approved site was marked up before construction, clearly showing three drops [kerbs] and a ramp. The Council said there were already two existing dropped kerbs in place at the site.
Mrs D employed her own contractor to start the works.
In February 2022 Mrs D asked the Council to conduct a site visit and check the completed works.
The Council re-visited the site and inspected the completed dropped kerbs. The Council’s review said the required work had been done and in place were “three kerbs with one ramp. This has been done." It noted this was what had been agreed in Mrs D’s application.
The Council said that following the inspection, Mrs D approached the inspector and told him she did not believe the works had been carried out correctly. She said she expected the Council to have dropped four kerbs and was unhappy with the quality of the work and the number of drops. She said that due to this she could not move her car onto her driveway without hitting the ramp.
Mrs D made several complaints throughout February and March 2022. She said: The Council had told her it would drop four kerbs and it had only dropped three.
The ramp was lifting, and the driveway could not be used; and She wanted the council to install an extra dropped kerb and the works completed properly.
The Council called Mrs D in February 2022 to discuss her concerns. It followed this conversation up with a letter. This included the information and requests Mrs D had provided in her application and photographs of the site before construction. The photo clearly showed two existing dropped kerbs with three further kerbs and a ramp ‘marked up’ to be dropped/added. The Council explained this gave the maximum number of five drops according to its policy.
Mrs D made a further complaint to the Council, saying during a telephone call a Council employee had been rude and had not listened to her or considered her disabilities.
The Council responded to Mrs D in March 2022. It said: The dropped kerbs were correctly installed.
It had assessed her needs when assessing the information, she had provided in her application.
It was built to the approved markings and specifications.
It had shared the approval notice with Mrs D and was clear in outlining what had been allowed.
Mrs D did not advise the Council this was wrong or not what she expected either at the time of application and approval or during construction.
If Mrs D wished to amend the access to better suit her needs, she would need to make a separate application and pay a further fee.
The Council also completed an investigation into Mrs D’s complaint that an employee had been rude. It wrote to Mrs D and said it had found no evidence the employee had been rude to her and closed its investigation.
Mrs D remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman in April 2022.
Analysis Mrs D’s application shows she asked for three to four dropped kerbs. The Council considered Mrs D’s application and supporting documents and granted permission for three dropped kerbs and a ramp which was in line with the limits of its policy. The Council said it wrote to Mrs D and confirmed in an email to her contractors it had approved ‘three dropped kerbs and a ramp.’
The time to challenge the Council’s approval would have been on receiving the permission. Mrs D did not challenge the Council’s decision or number of dropped kerbs it had allowed but asked her contractor to complete the works.
Following the Council’s site visit and inspection of the work in February 2022, Mrs D complained the work did not allow her easier access to her property. The Council told her the area now had five dropped kerbs (three dropped kerbs had been added to the existing two dropped kerbs) which was the maximum allowed under its policy. In response to her complaint, the Council noted it could consider a further application to amend the works. This may need it to consider an exception to its policy.
I am satisfied the Council has considered Mrs D’s application in line with its published procedures and policy. Therefore, I find no fault in the Council’s decision making. I cannot comment on the merits of the officers’ professional opinion that three kerbs were enough to meet Mrs D’s needs. It is open to Mrs D to make a further application to the Council if she feels further work is necessary. The Council will have to consider this in line with its policy and decide if it can approve the exception.
Mrs D complained officers were rude to her when discussing her complaint. The Council looked into this and said there was no evidence of its officers’ being rude. There is no recording of the conversation. There is a clear difference between the two versions of events. The Ombudsman could not reach a safe conclusion about which version was the most accurate without supporting evidence such as a recording. Therefore, I make no findings about this.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation by finding no evidence of fault with the Council in its consideration and approval of Mrs D’s application for a dropped kerb. I have made no findings on Mrs D’s complaint the Council were rude to her.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman