Summary: Mr X complained about the Council rejecting his application to extend a vehicle crossing outside his home. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council rejected his application for extended dropped kerbs outside his home because it says there is insufficient space within the frontage of his property to meet the requirements. He says that a similar property had similar work done a few weeks earlier and he wished to use the contractors while they were on site. He believes the rejection of his application was discrimination.

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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has commented on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X applied to have his dropped kerb extended because contractors were on site at another address in his area where they had done similar work. The Council rejected Mr X’s application because it said his property did not have sufficient space in front to meet the Council’s requirements. Mr X says the other property also does not meet the space requirements in the Council’s package and this must be discrimination against him.
5. The Council says the other application was approved some years ago and that it would not meet the current specifications if the application was made now. It will not approve a new application just because it meets historic standards and Mr X’s home has insufficient space to meet the 5-metre distance requirement. It says this is exacerbated by a garage which is closer than 5 metres from the boundary and an existing porch and bay window which project into the space allowance.
6. The Council considers each case on its own merits and Mr X’s application does not meet the requirements set out in its procedure for extended dropped kerbs.
7. Where there is no evidence of fault which causes injustice to the complainant, we will not investigate a complaint because we would be unable to recommend any remedy in such a situation.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman