The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response after the complainant reported that his neighbour uses his dropped kerb without the complainant’s consent and damages the verge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s response after he reported that a neighbour uses his dropped kerb and damages the grass verge. Mr X wants the Council to take action against the neighbour or refund the amount Mr X paid for his dropped kerb.
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 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 an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and images of the site. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
It is an offence to drive over a footpath which has not been strengthened by a dropped kerb. Residents can apply for a dropped kerb which allows them to drive over the path and access a drive. The resident does not own the dropped kerb but have purchased the right to drive over the path.
Mr X paid for a dropped kerb. He reported to the Council that his neighbour uses his dropped kerb, without consent, to access his drive and that he drives over the grass verge.
The Council visited at least twice. It sent a letter to the neighbour and suggested he apply for a dropped kerb and should not drive over the verge. It explained to Mr X why it would not adopt steps suggested by Mr X such as installing bollards. It said that many people in the area engage in similar practices and it could not target one property or stop the neighbour from accessing their drive.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice. I have looked at images of the site and the neighbour appears to drive over part of the dropped kerb and partly over a grass verge to access their drive; this does include driving over part of the path that has not been strengthened. I can understand why Mr X feels aggrieved because he acted appropriately by obtaining a dropped kerb; but, he does not own the dropped kerb and the neighbour’s use of it does not affect Mr X other than making him annoyed. Mr X still has a dropped kerb that he can use.
It might be better if the neighbour applied for a dropped kerb and the Council suggested this; but the Council cannot make them apply. In addition, the Council has visited, considered whether it can take further action and explained to Mr X why it will not. Mr X disagrees with the reasons provided but that disagreement is not an indication of fault. In addition, the policy says the Council can take enforcement action for unauthorised use of a footway but it does not say it must take action.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman