Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a request for a dropped kerb and vehicle crossing. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council denied his request for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to fund a dropped kerb and vehicle crossing. He said the Council did not visit his property or take his or his mother, Ms Y’s, health into consideration.
2. He said it impacted his mental health, and it left them housebound. He wants the Council to fit a dropped kerb and vehicle crossing to allow for off street parking.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• 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. Mr X contacted the Council to request a dropped kerb and vehicle crossing. The Council did not respond to his online service request. Mr X contacted the Council again and said he was informed that it had a duty to visit his property to see if it met the requirements.
7. In its complaint response the Council apologised that it did not respond to Mr X’s service request but explained it does not routinely respond to service requests sent through the online form. It said it said that Mr X completed a form for a dropped kerb to allow wheelchair access to the footway and this was not what he was requiring. It said it would look at the process of how locations of dropped kerbs are reported in future to prevent misdirected applications.
8. Mr X wanted a dropped kerb and vehicle crossing including a driveway to his home. The Council apologised for the misunderstanding. It also apologised if a Council officer had provided incorrect information. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
9. An Occupational Therapist (OT) discussed Mr X’s and Ms Y’s circumstances with Ms Y on the telephone. Case notes record Mr X had anxiety issues and the OT explained this would not come under DFG criteria. This meant that he would not qualify for assistance for a discretionary vehicle crossing for off-street parking.
10. In a second call Ms Y said their neighbours parked inconsiderately, she used a walking stick and had a Blue Badge. The OT suggested Ms Y contact highways for a disabled parking bay assessment, and she could only assess Ms Y’s access to her home. She suggested that they could make their own application for a vehicle crossing at their own expense but that this would also require permission from the social housing landlord. The Council then closed the referral.
11. The Council assessed Mr X’s and Ms Y’s request and personal circumstances. It clearly explained their request would not meet the DFG criteria. It considered their mobility and discussed their medical conditions. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman