Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision to refuse his dropped kerb application. He says the Council approved applications from other people whose circumstances are the same as his. Mr X wants a dropped kerb.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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))
3. We cannot share with a complainant information that is confidential to other people.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the dropped kerb rules, photographs and information from the Council about the applications submitted by other people and highlighted by Mr X. I considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The rules say the Council will refuse an application when the applicant lives in a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) and a dropped kerb would result in the loss of a parking bay within the CPZ.
6. Mr X lives in a CPZ. There is a parking bay outside his home. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb. The Council refused the application because the dropped kerb would lead to the loss of a parking bay.
7. Mr X disagrees with the decision and says the Council approved applications from other people who are in a similar situation to him.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence off fault by the Council. The Council’s decision to reject Mr X’s application is consistent with the policy because he lives in a CPZ and a dropped kerb would lead to the loss of a parking bay.
9. I asked the Council why it approved the applications referred to by Mr X. The Council provided an explanation but, due to data protection, I cannot share that information with Mr X. But, I can confirm that the decisions made in relation to those applications were appropriate and do not mean there is fault in relation to Mr X’s application. Mr X’s application would have been correctly refused regardless of the applications submitted by other people.
10. The Council is considering revising the dropped kerb policy. I do not know when or if the revised policy will come into force or whether it would be beneficial to Mr X. Mr X could consider submitting a new application if the rules change and would benefit his situation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman