Summary: In refusing Mrs B’s application for a dropped kerb, the Council properly applied its policy and explained its decision-making. Because of this, we cannot question the decision itself.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs B, complains that the Council has refused a dropped kerb at the front of her house.

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. I considered information from Mrs B and the Council.
5. Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened?

The Council’s dropped kerb policy

6. This policy says the Council has the power – rather than the duty – to agree dropped kerbs, and it sets criteria which must be met before it agrees an application.
7. One of these criteria is that a dropped kerb “does not lead to unintended consequences such as increase parking stress or reduce kerb space parking where it is, or may become, in high demand”.
8. Because of this, an application for a dropped kerb may be refused if the applicant lives in an area of very high parking demand, and if agreeing the application would lead to a loss of kerbside parking. The Council aims to maintain kerbside parking in high demand areas.
9. A further requirement is that, if an extension is agreed to an existing dropped kerb, the distance between the edge of the extension and the edge of the next dropped kerb must be at least 5.5 metres (so a car can be parked between them).

What happened?

10. In March 2019 Mrs B applied for a dropped kerb in front of her house.
11. The Council said Mrs B’s street had severe demand for parking, so it would only agree to a 0.6-metre extension to an existing dropped kerb which was positioned between her house and her next-door neighbour’s. It said this would assist Mrs B with access while also preserving kerbside parking.
12. The Council installed this extension in May.
13. In July Mrs B applied again. She said she was still unable to park on her driveway, because her neighbour parked in front of the shared driveway, and there was a lamppost at the end of the new dropped kerb extension. She said this left almost no room to drive onto the driveway between the lamppost and her neighbour’s car.
14. The Council told Mrs B it would not agree a new dropped kerb because of parking demand in her area. It also said an existing dropped kerb cannot be extended to within 5.5 metres of another one, so it could only offer her a further 0.6-metre extension to the existing dropped kerb next to her house.
15. Mrs B was unhappy with the Council’s proposal, and said the additional 0.6-metre extension would be pointless, because the lamppost was in the way. She asked if the Council had specifically denied her application because of her sexuality, or because she has a mental health disability.
16. The Council responded, and said it had considered the relevant issues in her case, but had applied its policy equally and fairly. It said, “It is not prudent … to remove spaces by allowing additional [dropped kerbs] or lengthy extensions to existing ones that result in the loss of on-street parking”.
17. Mrs B, in correspondence with the Ombudsman, has said the Council failed to consider her mental health disability before it made its decision. She set out ways in which her disability means she needs a dropped kerb.

My findings

18. It is for the Council to decide its criteria for installing dropped kerbs. But, when it considers each application, it must apply these criteria correctly and fairly, properly consider the application, and provide reasons for its decision.
19. The Council has two reasons for refusing Mrs B’s application. The first is that extending the existing dropped kerb more than 0.6 metres would bring it within 5.5 metres of another dropped kerb. The second reason is that parking demand is very high on Mrs B’s street and either extending the dropped kerb or installing a new one would reduced kerbside parking capacity, which is something it aims to avoid.
20. Both these reasons are set out in the Council’s policy, and therefore are acceptable reasons for it to use, as long as what it says is accurate.
21. I have no reason to doubt that Mrs B’s street experiences high parking demand, and I note that Mrs B does not dispute this. But I have used online maps (updated in June 2019, after Mrs B’s dropped kerb extension was installed) to see if the Council’s application of its 5.5-metre rule looks accurate.
22. Clearly, scaled measurements using online maps can only be considered approximate. But it appears the distance between Mrs B’s existing dropped kerb and the next one is around six metres.
23. This means the Council’s claim – that an extension of Mrs B’s dropped kerb of more than 0.6 metres would bring it within 5.5 metres of the next dropped kerb – looks fair. And, because of the lamppost, the dropped kerb would need to be extended much further than 0.6 metres to enable Mrs B to use her driveway.
24. Because of this, I am satisfied that the Council’s application of its policy was correct, and its decision to prioritise kerbside parking because of high demand does not appear unreasonable.
25. I note that Mrs B says the Council failed to consider her mental health disability before making a decision. However, I have no evidence that she mentioned her disability until her stage 2 complaint, and, even then, she did not suggest that this was a relevant factor in her application. Because of this, I do not consider the Council to have been at fault for not specifically considering how her disability affected its decision.
26. So – although I acknowledge that Mrs B feels it was very unfair – I have found no fault in the Council’s decision-making, which means I cannot question the refusal decision itself.

Back to top

Final decision

27. The Council was not at fault for its decision to refuse Mrs B a bigger extension to her dropped kerb.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman