Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant does not qualify for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision that he cannot have a dropped kerb. He says there are neighbouring properties, with a similar sized drive, which have dropped kerbs. He also says he could park horizontally on the drive.

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 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

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered the rules for qualifying for a dropped kerb and looked at a photograph of Mr X’s house. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Dropped kerb rules

4. The rules say the Council will only approve a dropped kerb if the forecourt has a minimum depth of 4.8 metres. They also say that horizontal parking is not permitted. The rules say the application will be refused if any of the conditions are not met. This applies even if there are similar properties which have a dropped kerb. The policy says the Council will only approve an application if one or more the conditions is not met in exceptional circumstances.

What happened

5. Mr X bought his home in March 2019. He saw there were similar properties in the road, with a dropped kerb, and assumed he would be able to install one.
6. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb. An officer visited and measured the forecourt (driveway). The depth of Mr X’s forecourt is 3.4 metres. The Council refused the application because Mr X’s forecourt does not meet the minimum required depth of 4.8 metres.
7. Mr X complained. He said he has room to park horizontally and similar sized properties in the road have a dropped kerb. In response the Council confirmed its decision to refuse a dropped kerb because the forecourt does not meet the depth requirements and horizontal parking is not permitted. It also explained that the other houses would have had their applications approved when different rules were in force.

Assessment

8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The rules say the Council will only approve a dropped kerb application if the applicant’s forecourt has a minimum depth of 4.8 metres. Mr X’s driveway has a depth of 3.4 metres. This means the Council’s decision is consistent with the policy and there is no reason to start an investigation. In addition, the policy says that all the conditions must be met regardless of whether neighbouring properties have a dropped kerb.
9. Mr X has children and a disabled relative who visits each year for a few months. He says it is very hard to the meet his family’s needs due to the parking problems. He says the Council could approve his application for special reasons. However, the difficulties described by Mr X are those faced by many families. The Council is not wrong to say they do not represent an exceptional reason to approve an application where the minimum depth requirement is missed by more than a metre. In addition, the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. He cannot intervene simple because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman