The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to extend his dropped kerb. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council extended his neighbour’s dropped kerb while carrying out resurfacing work on his road but refused to do the same for him. He also complains the Council delayed in dealing with his complaint about the matter.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Background
There is a process for applying for a dropped kerb extension which is set out on the Council’s website . Mr X has not applied; instead he asked the Council’s contractors to extend his dropped kerb while they were carrying out resurfacing work on his road. This is not the proper process and the contractors therefore declined his request. Mr X is not happy with the decision and believes he may have been discriminated against.
My assessment
There was no requirement for the Council to agree to extend Mr X’s dropped kerb and I have seen no evidence of discrimination by the Council. It is therefore unlikely investigation would find fault in the Council’s handling of this matter.
In his complaint Mr X refers to his neighbour’s property where their dropped kerb was extended as part of the resurfacing works and suggests this shows he was treated differently. But the Council has explained the reasons it extended the neighbour’s dropped kerb and the reasons it declined the request to extend his and it is not for us to question its judgement.
The issue also does not cause Mr X significant injustice. When Mr X moved to the property he accepted his dropped kerb as it was; the resurfacing work has not changed this and the benefit to his neighbour is not an injustice to him. Mr X can access his driveway as he always has and if he wishes to extend his dropped kerb he can apply to the Council to do so.
Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show any fault caused Mr X significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman