Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a dropped kerb application. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council refused her dropped kerb application. She said this denied her a reasonable adaption for a medical need.
2. She said the Council did not carry out a fair stage two review of her complaint. She wants an apology and the Council to implement an independent appeals process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X made a dropped kerb application which the Council refused. She appealed the decision, and the Council explained it does not have an official appeals process but instead arranged further OT assessment.
7. An Occupational Therapist (OT) asked Miss X to arrange a physiotherapy assessment because additional supporting evidence was needed for her application. The OT did not accept the evidence letters Miss X provided because they were not written specifically as part of an assessment.
8. The OT then told Miss X that the housing management company had confirmed she was not listed as a joint tenant at the property and closed her case.
9. Miss X made a formal complaint about how her application had been handled. In its response the Council acknowledged it was unreasonable for the OT not to accept Miss X’s evidence letters. It also said Miss X’s case should not have been closed based on tenure and it had now assisted Miss X to register her occupancy and assigned her case to a senior OT to complete an assessment. The Council explained it did not have a formal appeals process, but would arrange a further OT assesment where a person disagreed with a decision.
10. The Council completed the assessment and sent Miss X an outcome letter stating it approved the application in principle, subject to planning permission.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council apologised to Miss X for the faults it identified in the assessment process and took appropriate steps to remedy the injustice caused by arranging a further assessment by a senior OT. It also said the errors it identified would be addressed with its staff to ensure correct procedures were followed in the future. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman