Summary: Mr X complains about an installed vehicle access crossing at his property. He is unhappy with the width and position of the crossing. We find no fault with how the Council built his vehicle access crossing.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about an installed vehicle access crossing (dropped kerb) at his property. He is unhappy with the width and position of the crossing. He says the Council has not kept the tarmac in line with his property. Mr X says people keep parking his vehicles in a manner that overhangs his dropped kerb and this blocks access to his driveway.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I sent a draft decision to Mr X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s domestic vehicle crossings policy 2020

8. Paragraph 4.3 of the Council’s policy sets out the standards for vehicle crossing widths. It notes that in general, the width of a crossing is limited to that necessary to facilitate its proper use.
9. It notes the standard crossing width (lowered kerb length) is 2.7 metres. This is the normal width appropriate in most cases.

What happened

10. The Council sent a letter to Mr X outlining plans to resurface the pavement outside his property. The Council noted that Mr X’s property did not have a dropped kerb and the Council could install a dropped kerb while they resurface the pavement. The letter invited Mr X to apply if he was interested.
11. The letter noted the dropped kerb length would be 2.7m. The letter also included a diagram which confirmed the length of the dropped kerb (the lowered part) would be a maximum of 2.7m.
12. The Council completed the dropped kerb installation in February 2021.
13. Mr X complained to the Council in February 2021. He told the Council the dropped kerb was not in line with his property and that his neighbours had wider dropped kerbs. Mr X told the Council vehicles were parking on the verge next to his dropped kerb. This was causing an obstruction as the vehicles blocked part of his dropped kerb.
14. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and explained it had built the dropped kerb in line with its policy. The Council also explained it had amended its vehicle crossing policy over the years and that previous versions might have allowed for wider dropped kerbs. The Council said it adhered to the current policy.
15. In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed its policy did allow, in exceptional circumstances, for the total width of the dropped kerb to be 5.4m The Council said it did not consider Mr X’s case to be exceptional as the issues he raised were due to driver behaviour. The Council said widening Mr X’s crossing to match the width of his driveway would not prevent this behaviour.
16. The Council said parking across a vehicle crossing could be an obstruction and so it could issue a fixed penalty notice.

Analysis

17. The evidence shows the Council has installed the dropped kerb outside Mr X’s property in line with its policy. This is because the policy is clear the standard width of a dropped kerb is 2.7m.
18. Further, the Council has provided a copy of its letter it sent to Mr X which outlined the length of the dropped kerb would be 2.7m. The letter also included a clear diagram setting out the maximum length of the dropped kerb.
19. Therefore, I am satisfied Mr X would have been aware of the specification the Council would build the dropped kerb to before he made his application. Since Mr X was aware of the maximum widths, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to raise concerns about the maximum widths before the dropped kerb was built. There is no evidence Mr X did this.
20. While the Council’s policy allows for a wider maximum width in exceptional circumstances, the Council has explained why it does not consider Mr X’s case to be exceptional. There is no evidence the Council has not properly considered Mr X case. Therefore, the Council is entitled to make this decision.
21. I do not consider there has been any fault with how the Council built Mr X’s dropped kerb. This is because the dropped kerb has been built in line with its policy. The Council has also provided its rationale for not considering Mr X’s case to be exceptional. This was a decision it was entitled to make.
22. Finally, I note the Council has advised Mr X that it could potentially take enforcement action against the vehicles who obstruct his dropped kerb. It is open to Mr X to contact the Council to report the vehicles who obstruct his dropped kerb.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I find no fault with how the Council has built his vehicle access crossing. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman