The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s policy on the installation of dropped kerbs which led to it refusing Mr X’s application in 2018. This is because the part of the complaint which relates to Mr X’s own application is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction and because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council in relation to current implementation of its dropped kerb policy.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council’s dropped kerb policy is not fit for purpose and that it has been inconsistently applied with permission for dropped kerbs being given for properties similar to his when his application was refused. He says it has also ignored his requests and suggestions relating to the provision of electric charging points in his road.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to the Council’s 2018 decision on Mr X’s dropped kerb application. As we would reasonably have expected him to have complained to us at the time had he thought there had been fault by the Council, this matter falls outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and will not be investigated.
With regard to the Council’s dropped kerb policy, it is not our role to review the merits of council policies or decisions. We cannot question them where councils have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. That Mr X may disagree with the Council’s dropped kerb and electric charging point policy is not evidence of fault which warrants investigation by the Ombudsman.
Mr X says there have been inconsistencies in the Council’s application of its dropped kerb policy because some properties have a dropped kerb but do not meet the policy’s minimum required measurements. However, he has not specified which properties he is referring to and the Council has explained that some dropped kerbs would have been installed prior to its current policy.
While Mr X may be disappointed with the outcome of his complaint to the Council, there is no evidence to suggest fault which warrants an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the part of the complaint which relates to his own application is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction and because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council in relation to current implementation of its dropped kerb policy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman