Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal of his application for a new dropped kerb outside his property. There was no fault in the Council’s consideration of the application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a new dropped kerb outside his property. He wishes to be able to park parallel to the front of his home and says other people on the street park in the same manner.

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. 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

4. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The Council’s Terms and Conditions for installation of a vehicle crossover.
5. I wrote to Mr X and the Council with a draft of this decision and considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council assesses dropped kerb applications in line with the criteria on the Council’s website. The Council’s Residential and Light commercial Vehicle Crossover Guidance was available on the application page when Mr X made his application. The guidance requires the parking area of the property to be a minimum of 4.8 metres by 2.4 metres to allow a vehicle to park straight on to the highway. The Council will refuse the application if the vehicle cannot park without part of the vehicle overhanging the highway.
7. The Council’s terms and conditions on its website at the time of Mr X’s application also stated the forecourt of the applicant’s property must have a minimum width of 2.4 metres and a minimum depth of 4.8 metres. The applicant must agree to the terms and conditions when applying.
8. The application fee is non-refundable. The Council will refuse the application if it does not meet one or more of the conditions.

What happened

9. Mr X applied for an extension to the existing vehicle crossover to the side of his property on 24 October 2018. He also asked the Council to install a new vehicle crossover in front of his property.
10. The Council’s Highways Engineer carried out an inspection on the same day and gave Mr a price to extend his existing crossover. The engineer decided a further inspection was required to decide whether Mr X had enough space at the front of his property for a new vehicle crossover.
11. The Council wrote to Mr X on 7 November 2018 to tell him it had refused his application for a new crossover. This was because Mr X’s property does not have enough depth to the allow a vehicle crossing. The Council quoted its Residential and Light Commercial Vehicle Crossover policy (see paragraph 6).
12. The Council wrote to Mr X on 15 November 2018, telling him it had granted his application to extend the existing dropped kerb.
13. Mr X complained to the Council on 5 December 2018 about its decision to refuse his application for a new vehicle crossover. Mr X said there was enough space to park a vehicle parallel to the road without blocking access. He said other properties nearby have vehicles parked in front which are parallel to the road.
14. The Council responded on 17 December 2018 and explained why it had refused Mr X’s application. It said Mr X’s application did not meet the Vehicle Crossing Manual policy which needed minimum measurements of 4.8 metres by 2.4 metres to allow a vehicle to park straight on to the road. While the Council may have approved vehicle crossings in the past, that was under different policy. The Council said Mr X’s property was not suitable for a vehicle crossing as there would be an overhang onto the footway.
15. The Council completed work extending Mr X’s existing vehicle crossover on 9 January 2019.
16. Mr X made another complaint to the Council on 7 January 2019 as he was still unhappy it refused his application for a new crossing.
17. The Council responded on 14 January 2019. It told Mr X his application does not meet the terms and conditions published on the Council’s website. Mr X had said in his application that he met the terms and conditions, but this was found not to be the case when officers visited his property. Mr X’s garden is not deep enough and so the Council refused his application.
18. Mr X took his complaint to stage two of the complaints process on 27 January 2019. He asked the Council to take account of the fact he can park parallel to his property without blocking access to his house or the footpath. Mr X said he telephoned the Council before advancing as he did not think the area at the front of his house was deep enough. Mr X said the Council told him because he already has a dropped kerb where the depth is less than 4.8 metres, he could have another to create a sweep in and sweep out driveway. 
19. The Council sent its stage two response to Mr X on 4 March 2019. It said it usually carries out one site inspection, but Mr X had another after the engineer discussed the application with a manager. The Council found evidence Mr X telephoned on 24 October 2018 but could not find information about the call or who Mr X spoke to. The Council said it told Mr X why it refused his application. The complaint was not upheld and the Council signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman.
20. Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage three of its complaints process. The Council refused. It said its complaints procedure cannot be used to reverse decisions based on legislation and there was no service failure.
21. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman on 3 July 2019. He said while his application didn’t conform to the exact criteria, there is ample room for him to park his vehicle without obstructing the pavement. He said the Council’s decision showed inflexibility. Neighbours park parallel and some also park with vehicles overhanging the pavement, so he cannot understand why the Council refused his application.

Response to my enquiries

22. The Council told me the officer who inspected Mr X’s property took further advice due to the width of the frontage of Mr X’s property. Another colleague then carried out an assessment.  Despite this, the forecourt of the property does not have a minimum depth of 4.8 metres, meaning an average vehicle would overhang the footpath.

Analysis

23. The Council’s policy in place when Mr X’s applied for a new crossing needed his property to have enough space to park his vehicle straight on to the road. The engineer who conducted the site visit measured Mr X’s front garden to be 3.9 metres deep. A depth of 4.8 metres is needed for an average vehicle to park straight on to the road. Mr X’s front garden did not meet the criteria, so the Council refused his application. The Council’s decision was in line with its policy and was not fault.
24. Mr X was aware of the Council’s policy and that his front garden did not meet the requirements. He disagrees with the decision because he has enough room to park his car parallel to the road. However, the Council’s policy states there must be space for a vehicle to park straight on to the road. It would have been helpful if the Council had told Mr X why it was not suitable for him to park his car parallel to the road, but not doing so was not fault. The Council conducted a second site visit and decided to refuse the application. While the Council could have exercised discretion and allowed Mr X’s application, it was not fault to refuse it on policy grounds. The Council has been consistent in following its policy.
25. Mr X is unhappy other residents park parallel to the road in front of their properties. The Council told Mr X while earlier applications from other residents may have been approved, it was following policy in place when he applied. That was not fault.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s application for a dropped kerb.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman