Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb. The decision followed the Council’s policy and it is unlikely we would find fault in the way it was reached. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb. He says he will get penalty charge notices for parking on his frontage without a dropped kerb.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X applied to the Council for a dropped kerb to the front of his property in 2019. The Council refused the application because Mr X does not have sufficient space off-road to park a car. Mr X refutes this and has provided a photo of his car parked at the front of his house. He accepts the space does not comply with the Council’s policy but says the Council has approved and installed a dropped kerb at his neighbour’s property, which also does not meet the criteria. He therefore believes the Council should grant his application and install the dropped kerb.
5. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s application for a dropped kerb was in accordance with its policy and it is unlikely we would find fault in the way it was reached. We also cannot recommend the Council goes against its policy to grant Mr X permission for a dropped kerb.
6. Mr X refers to his neighbour’s property, which he says also does not meet the criteria but has recently had a dropped kerb installed. But any council decision on his neighbour’s property does not directly or significantly affect him. It is the Council’s decision on Mr X’s application that affects him and I do not consider we should investigate this further for the reason set out above.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council reached its decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman