Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her dropped kerb application. We have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her dropped kerb application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X bought her property in 2018 assuming she could install a dropped kerb as her neighbours have done. However, the Council refused her application because her hardstanding does not meet the published minimum depth. It upheld its decision at appeal stage.
6. The Council adopted its current published Residential Domestic Vehicle Crossover Policy in 2019. This sets out the requirements all new applications must meet. It states ‘The minimum depth of hard standing parking space on the property shall be 4.8m. This shall be the clear depth that the vehicle can safely and comfortably park within.’
7. Mrs X says her hardstanding is 4.6m and the Council changed its policy after she bought her house and without her knowledge. She says the Council should consult residents before changing polices which may affect property values.
8. The Council is not required to consult the public before changing its policy on dropped kerbs. Mrs X’s property does not have a 4.8m deep hardstanding. Dropped kerbs at neighbouring properties are irrelevant. They were in place before the new policy was adopted in 2019.
9. I understand Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s decision on her application. However, we have seen no evidence of fault by the Council. It has considered and decided her application and appeal according to the policy. We are not an appeal body. We cannot question the merits of decisions made without fault in the process by which they were reached. The published policy explains the size of hardstanding needed. Policies will change overtime and the current size criteria is applied to ensure vehicles do not overhang the pavement. The Council is entitled to refuse Mrs X’s application as it does not meet the policy.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is no sigh of fault by the Council in the way is considered and decided her dropped kerb application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman