Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s decision not to allow him a second dropped kerb at his property. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council in dealing with this matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, complains the Council will not allow him to install a second dropped kerb at his property despite this being a beneficial arrangement for all concerned and despite the fact that other neighbours already have the dropped kerb arrangements he desires.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information Mr B provided and the Council. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B lives on a corner road property and wants to install a dropped kerb at the front of his property to allow his partner and their child to enter and exit the front of the property easily. There is already a dropped kerb installed at the road to the side of his property for rear access to his garage and hard standing. Mr B’s partner finds this rear access difficult to negotiate with the child and buggy.
6. Mr B contacted the Council to enquire about applying to install a dropped kerb at the front of his property but it advised him that to give permission for this, the existing dropped kerb at the rear would need to be reinstated. It referred Mr B to its Terms and Conditions for dropped kerbs which sets out that older, historic crossovers do not set a precedent and that in this case Mr B does not meet the criteria for a second dropped kerb.

Assessment

7. Mr B does not meet the Council’s criteria for a second dropped kerb. While this is disappointing, I have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council has dealt with the matter. It has considered Mr B’s position and explained he can change the location of his dropped kerb from the rear to the front of the property and it is up to Mr B to decide which arrangement suits his family the best.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council in dealing with this matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman