Summary: There was fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr X’s application for a dropped kerb. This caused him a financial loss. The Council will make him a payment and apologise to remedy the avoidable inconvenience and distress. It will also make changes to information on its website.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council agreed to install a dropped kerb, accepted payment for this and then did nothing for eight months. He said the Council delayed refunding his payment after he asked it to. Mr X said this caused avoidable distress and inconvenience chasing the matter up.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the complaint to the Council, its responses and documents from Mr X. I discussed the complaint with Mr X.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant guidance, policy and procedure

6. Our Principles of Good Administrative Practice sets out our expectations of councils. We use them as a benchmark when we investigate the actions of local authorities. We expect councils to:
• Explain and respond to any delays proactively
• Set expectations for people by having and communicating appropriate guidance
• Being open and clear about policies and procedures and ensuring information is clear, accurate and complete.
7. The Council’s website explains:
• There is an application fee of £113 for a dropped kerb
• Once this has been paid, it will inspect the area and then it will arrange and provide the applicant with a quotation for the works. An applicant needs to accept the quote within two months and pay in full
• Due to demand, installation will take at least 16 weeks after payment is received.

What happened

8. Mr X told us the Council agreed to install a dropped kerb which would cost £4000 and he paid in full in January 2024.
9. Hearing nothing about the works, Mr X complained to the Council in July. He asked the Council for a refund in August. The Council responded to the complaint in September, upholding it and apologising for the delay. The Council said:
• Due to its financial position, the Council had reviewed the dropped kerb service and merged it with another team. It had appointed new contractors.
• It had a backlog of applications and the new team was prioritising the oldest first.
• It would update him in due course and provide a time estimate for carrying out the works.
10. Mr X asked the Council to refund his payment of £4000 and to escalate his complaint to stage two. The Council responded in the middle of September with a further apology for the delay processing his refund.
11. The Council refunded Mr X in the middle of October. He remained unhappy and complained to us.

Findings

12. The Council was at fault because it was not open about the likely timescales for installing Mr X’s dropped kerb before accepting payment from him. This was not in line with our expected standards and it did not enable him to make a fully informed decision when committing the money. Information on the Council’s website was incomplete and did not explain the Council’s financial difficulties or that it was dealing with a significant backlog. We would expect the Council to have been open about this upfront.
13. The Council took two months to refund Mr X’s money. This was too long and was fault.
14. The fault I have identified in the last two paragraphs caused avoidable distress and inconvenience.

Back to top

Agreed action

15. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Make Mr X a payment of £200 to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience. This includes a symbolic payment towards interest as well as the application fee of £113.
• Updates information on its website. This should give the public:
1. information about there being a backlog of approved applications and
2. a time estimate for completion of works following payment.
16. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the actions in the last paragraph.

Back to top

Final decision

17. There was fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr X’s application for a dropped kerb. This caused him a financial loss. The Council will make him a payment and apologise to remedy the avoidable inconvenience and distress. It will also make changes to information on its website.

18. I completed the investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman