Summary: Mr X complains the Council is discriminating against him by refusing to allow him to install a dropped kerb outside his home. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we have not seen any evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refuses to allow him to install a dropped kerb outside his house, despite neighbours having such arrangements.
2. He says his has suffered significant financial loss because he cannot out park his electric taxi outside his house to charge it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr X and discussed his concerns with him. I also considered the Council’s Vehicle Crossover Policy.
5. Mr X had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council policy

6. The Council approved a new policy for vehicle crossovers (dropped kerbs). The Policy came into effect 11 October 2017. The policy says the Council will only consider applications that comply with the policy. Any previous polices no longer apply from the date of the new policy. This means that older dropped kerbs of a similar size in the same vicinity will not necessarily mean an application for a new dropped kerb will be approved.
7. It also says the minimum off street parking area measured at right angles to a property is 4.8 metres deep by 2.7 metres wide. Where the minimum off street parking requirement is not met the application will be refused.

What happened

8. Mr X is a taxi driver. In line with the Transport for London advice and guidance he bought a new electric taxi.
9. He applied to the Council for a dropped kerb. This would enable him to park his taxi outside his home to charge.
10. The Council refused the application because the off-road parking space outside his home does not meet the minimum requirement set out in the policy.
11. Mr X appeal against the decision. He provided evidence that many of his neighbours have dropped kerbs, despite their parking spaces being similar or smaller than his.
12. I understand Mr X believes these existing properties have set a precedent and the Council should approve his application. He will be unable to charge his electric taxi, therefore this has a significant impact on him.
13. However, the Council’s policy is clear that if an application for a dropped kerb does not meet the minimum parking space requirement then it will be refused. It also states that existing dropped kerbs in the area do not mean that new applications will be automatically approved.
14. The Council policy forms part of the application pack, so Mr X would have been aware of this before he applied.
15. I can see no fault with the way the Council came to its decision. I appreciate Mr X does not agree with the decision not to grant permission and I understand the impact this will have. But the Council has acted according to its published policy.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I will not investigate this complaint. I have not seen any evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to refuse his application for a dropped kerb.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman