Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application to put a dropped kerb across the entrance of her property. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her application to put a dropped kerb across the entrance of her property. Mrs X has also complained about how the Council dealt with her complaint.

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. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered Mrs X’s complaint and the correspondence from the Council. I invited Mrs X to comment on a draft of this decision and I have considered her comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

5. Residents can apply to the Council for a dropped kerb to allow vehicle access to a driveway or parking area. The Council charges a non-refundable application fee. If the application is accepted the kerb will be lowered and the pavement or verge strengthened to prevent damage to the highway.

What happened

6. In October 2017, Mrs X applied to the Council for a dropped kerb across the entrance of her driveway. The Council refused the application as it said the request did not comply with its policy as the proposed dropped kerb would be off a lay-by.
7. Mrs X disagreed with the Council’s decision. She said that it had not considered her mobility issues and argued that her neighbours had been allowed to lower the kerb outside their homes. In response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council said it cannot take the applicant’s health into account when assessing applications and Mrs X’s neighbour’s dropped kerbs were approved before it changed its policy in 2013.

Assessment

8. I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb. This is because it is unlikely I would find fault by the Council.
9. The Council’s policy sets out the criteria for dropped kerb applications. The policy says that applicants should not assume their property will be approved for a vehicle access and dropped kerbs will not be allowed in a lay-by.
10. In this case, the Council refused the application as the proposed dropped kerb would be off a lay-by. I understand Mrs X disagrees with this decision and argues that other properties on the street where she lives have been given permission for a dropped kerb. But I am satisfied the Council properly considered if the application met its criteria and the decision to refuse the dropped kerb is in line with its policy. The policy also says that applicants should not assume their request will be successful because a neighbour has previously been given permission for a dropped crossing, as the criteria for applications has changed. As the Council properly considered Mrs X’s application for a dropped kerb, in line with its policy, it is unlikely I would find fault.
11. Mrs X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor issues such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman