Summary: Mrs B complains the Council refused her application for a dropped kerb. Mrs B says this caused her inconvenience because she cannot park outside her house. The Council was at fault because its terms and conditions for a dropped kerb were not comprehensive. The Council remedied the injustice caused by this fault during its complaints procedure.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained the Council refused her application for a dropped kerb.
2. Mrs B says this caused her inconvenience because she cannot park outside her house.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered:
• Mrs B’s complaint and the information she provided;
• documents supplied by the Council;
• relevant legislation and guidelines; and
• the Council’s policies and procedures.
7. Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and Guidance

8. Any person may ask the council for a vehicle cross over (dropped kerb). The Council may approve the request with or without modification, or may propose alternative works or reject the request. The Council must consider the following when making its decision:
• the need to prevent damage to a footway or verge;
• the need to ensure, so far as practicable, safe access to and exit from premises; and
• the need to facilitate, so far as practicable, the passage of vehicles in the highway. (Highways Act 1980, part IX, s.184)
9. The Council publishes terms and conditions about dropped kerbs which set out the circumstances in which an application may be refused. These include:
• If the applicant needs planning permission, they can submit their application for consideration without the planning permission, but they must have planning permission before the dropped kerb can be installed.
10. The £103 application cost is nonrefundable even if an application is rejected or the applicant decides not to pay the confirmed cost of installation.
11. Applicants which do not meet one or more of the conditions will be refused, regardless of if there are neighbouring properties with dropped kerbs.
12. Only in exceptional circumstances will applications not meeting one of these conditions be considered

What happened

13. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
14. Mrs B rents a property from the Council.
15. In April 2019, the Council’s housing service gave Mrs B permission to carry out work to her property subject to conditions including: 
• Allowing the Council to install a dropped kerb and hardstanding at her property at her expense.
• Constructing a driveway to her property providing the required vehicle crossover had been constructed at her expense.
• The driveway was a permeable material.
• That she applied for planning permission if the area of the driveway was over 5m2 and non-permeable.
16. Mrs B arranged for the front of her property to be concreated to create a driveway.
17. Mrs B applied to the Council’s highways department for a dropped kerb in September 2019. The highways department visited the site. It decided to reject Mrs B’s application because the ground between the verge and the driveway was too steep. The highways department wrote to Mrs B with its decision.
18. Mrs B complained about the highway department’s decision. The Council reviewed her application and the work she had done to the property. It advised her that covering the area at the front of the property in concrete did not comply with the condition the driveway was made from a permeable material. It also told her she should have applied for planning permission because the area she altered was over 5m2. The Council said while the housing service agreed she could carry out work to the property, when the highways department considered her application for a dropped kerb it was refused. The Council said it upheld this decision. The Council advised if it installed a dropped kerb with such a steep gradient between the verge and the driveway vehicles could get damaged.
19. In October 2019, Mrs B asked the Council to escalate her complaint. She explained the gradient of the ground was not in the Council’s terms and conditions for a dropped kerb. She advised the Council she would get anyone using her driveway to sign a waiver so they could not claim for any damage to their vehicle.
20. The Council explained while the gradient of the ground was not included in its terms and conditions, it considered the safety of other vehicle user and pedestrians when it assessed an application for a dropped kerb. It said because of the steep gradient between the kerb and the driveway, vehicles could get damaged. The Council refunded Mrs B the fee she had paid to make the dropped kerb application as a goodwill gesture.
21. The Council told Mrs B she needed to apply for planning permission for the work she had undertaken to the property retrospectively. It advised her if she included an application for a dropped kerb as part of her planning application, it would be refused.

Analysis

22. The Council’s reason for rejecting Mrs B’s dropped kerb application was that the ground between the verge and her property was too steep. This is a decision the Council was entitled to make. I have not seen any evidence of fault in how this decision was reached and so I cannot question its merits.
23. Gradient was not referred to in the Council’s terms and conditions which raised Mrs B’s expectations about the success of her application. If Mrs B had been aware that if the ground between the verge and her property was too steep, she may not have made the application. The Council remedied any injustice caused to Mrs B when it refunded the cost of making an application.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation and uphold Ms B’s complaint. Ms B was caused an injustice by the actions of the Council. The injustice caused by this fault was remedied by the Council during its complaint’s procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman