Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb (vehicle crossover). Mr X wants to be able to park on his property due to a lack of parking on the public highway. The Council has refused his application. This is because it says the area to the front of Mr X’s property does not meet the size requirements in the Council’s policy for dropped kerbs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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 Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb so he could park on an area to the front of his property. The Council rejected Mr X’s application in October 2019. The Council said this was because the application did not meet its policy which says:

“A crossover will only be approved where a standard car parking space (2.4m wide x 4.8m) deep at 90 degrees to the highway can be accommodated…a vehicle must be able to leave the space at right angles to the kerb. Parallel parking to the carriageway shall not be permitted.”

6. Mr X appealed on the basis he had bought the house because he did not think lowering the kerb would be an issue. Mr X said that other houses in the street with a similar sized garden have dropped kerbs. Mr X said work had been done to the garden and it was now 4.5 metres deep. Mr X said people often parked in front of his house, meaning he had to park “very far from home and my family is genuinely suffering as a result of this.”
7. The Council responded and said Mr X’s frontage had originally been measured as 3.8 metres deep. A further site visit showed the required depth had still not been met – despite the work carried out. The Council’s policy, introduced in July 2019, said short frontages were not allowed, and crossings completed before the new policy did not set a precedent.
8. Mr X responded and said the frontage was 4.6 metres deep, sent evidence his car had been vandalised, and said that he could park on the road, but in front of the dropped kerb. This would prevent his vehicle overhanging and would allow him to park in front of his house.
9. The Council’s final response confirmed the measurements to the bay window, step, and front door of Mr X’s house. All were less than those required by the Council’s policy. It upheld the decision not to grant the application for a dropped kerb. The Council said the application had been properly assessed and there were no exceptional circumstances warranting an exception to the policy.
10. The role of the Ombudsman is to look for administrative fault. We are not an appeal body and cannot question the merits of a council’s decision if there is no fault in the way it was reached.
11. The Council has considered Mr X’s application for a dropped kerb. It has explained to Mr X it does not meet the requirements contained in its published policy. It has considered Mr X’s appeals and decided there are no exceptional circumstances warranting a deviation from its published policy. While I know Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision, there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process for the Ombudsman to become involved.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman