Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused his application for a dropped kerb at a property he owns. He says other similar nearby properties 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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council refused Mr X’s application for a dropped kerb. It said his property's parking area did not meet its minimum size requirements for a car parked parallel to the public highway. It said this is in line with its policy.
7. The Council explained that its policy has changed over time. It said it may have approved similar nearby dropped kerbs under a previous policy. Mr X must meet the specifications in its current policy.
8. I have not seen enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify investigating. It applied its policy.
9. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
10. Mr X also says the Council took too long to process his application for a dropped kerb. It is not proportionate for us to investigate this ancillary matter if we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman