The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to charge the full price if the complainant extends his dropped kerb to accommodate the impact of a proposed cycle lane. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says he will have difficulty using his drive if the Council builds a cycle lane. Mr X wants to extend his dropped kerb to deal with this problem and says the Council should halve the fee.
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. (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 information about the proposed scheme. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council has a proposal to build a cycle lane outside Mr X’s home. Mr X has been aware of the proposal since about 2020 and has objected to the plan and complained about aspects of the consultation. In some roads the Council has built cycle lanes and Mr X says they cause problems for residents using their driveways.
Mr X says the proposed lane outside his home will create a hazard because it will mean he is forced to drive into the opposite traffic lane to use his drive. Mr X wants to alleviate this hazard by extending his dropped kerb, thereby creating more room to safely use his drive.
The Council told Mr X the cost to extend his dropped kerb would be £1667. Mr X asked the Council to reduce the fee because he does not think he should pay the full cost to deal with a problem created by the Council.
In response the Council said it cannot reduce the fee because the fees are fixed in the schedule of fees that are set each year. It said the cycle lane will not change the kerb line and Mr X would be able to use his drive without increasing the width. The Council said it would pass on his comments to the scheme designer.
The Council told me the plans for the lane outside Mr X’s home have not yet been finalised and are still being developed. It said there may be amendments to the proposal and, once the plan is finalised, it will carry out further engagement with residents.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X wants to extend his dropped kerb. The Council’s quote for the work reflects the schedule of fees so there is no suggestion of fault.
Mr X says he needs to extend his dropped kerb to alleviate a hazard; but, there is currently no cycle lane nor a hazard and it is not known whether the lane, when built, would cause the problems Mr X anticipates. It is for Mr X to decide whether and when to extend his dropped kerb but another option would be to wait and see what happens. If he did have problems using his drive, another possibility would be to contact the Council to see if anything could be adjusted. But, as it stands, it is for Mr X to decide if he wants to widen the dropped kerb and pay the stated fee. Even if Mr X does have problems after the lane is built it would be for the Council to decide what help, if any, it can offer.
Our aim is to remedy injustice caused by fault. At the moment there is no suggestion of fault and we do not ask the Council to provide a remedy when there is no fault and no current impact.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman