Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to allow him to install a dropped kerb at his property. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault sufficient to warrant an investigation and the Council has offered to revisit the site to confirm the measurements involved.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council refused his application for a dropped kerb based on incorrect measurements and subsequently told him the presence of a telegraph pole in close proximity also meant he would not be able to have one. Mr X wants the Council to accept one of the alternative options he has put forward so he can have a dropped kerb.

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 provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X applied to the Council for a dropped kerb. It refused his request because the measurements at the front of his property did not meet the Council’s criteria.
6. When Mr X contacted the Council about its decision, it confirmed his application did not meet the width and length criteria and advised that a dropped kerb would also have to be one metre away from the telegraph pole outside his property. However, it did say that Mr X could extend the existing dropped kerb he shared with his neighbour.
7. In responding to his complaint about this matter the Council acknowledged that its information for applicants did not mention the restriction about telegraph poles, in place to ensure the foundations of poles are not compromised. However, it said regardless of the presence of the pole, the frontage of his property did not meet the width and depth criteria. It confirmed it would be looking to add to its applicant information to include reference to street furniture. It repeated its offer to extend the existing crossover but that if Mr X did not want this it would return his application fee in full.
8. In responding to my query about the width and depth measurements which Mr X disputes, the Council has said if Mr X wants, an engineer can meet him on site to explain the point at which measurements were taken and why the Council will not agree his application.

Back to top

Assessment

9. Based on the measurements it has taken, the Council has followed its criteria and refused Mr X’s application because it does not meet the required width and depth measurements. It is not our role to review the merits of decisions or council policy which have been properly made and the Council is not obliged to follow one of Mr X’s alternative options for a dropped kerb.
10. The Council has acknowledged that reference to street furniture should be made to inform applicants of the applicable restrictions and that the terms and conditions on its website will be reviewed to include this. Mr X was unaware of this restriction when he applied but the Council has offered him a full fee refund. An investigation by the Ombudsman would not seek any further remedy.
11. It is open to Mr X to contact the Council if he wants the on-site meeting offered so a clarification of the measurements taken can be made.
12. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says the Council’s offer to extend the existing dropped kerb is not practical and that the Council’s width and depth measurements are incorrect. The decision whether to allow a dropped kerb is one for the Council and not the Ombudsman to make. If the measurements Mr X has taken are correct then these can be confirmed at the meeting and the Council can reassess.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault sufficient to warrant an investigation and the Council has offered to revisit the site to confirm the measurements involved.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman