Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to grant permission for a dropped kerb. Any complaint about the Council’s 2015 decision is late and it is unlikely we would find fault affecting its more recent decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decisions to refuse his applications for a dropped kerb. He claims the Council has discriminated against him and is concerned about the impact of the decision on his daughter who has difficulties walking to and from the house.

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)

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. In 2015 Mr X applied for a dropped kerb to allow him to park his car at the front of his house. The Council refused his application but Mr X believes it was wrong to do so. The Council changed its policy in 2019 and Mr X applied again; the Council again refused his application and Mr X complained. He accepts he does not meet the current criteria for a dropped kerb as the space he has available does not meet that required. But he believes the Council should disapply its policy as his daughter has a health condition which makes it difficult for her to walk to and from the car. He says she frequently suffers injuries and that his car is often blocked in by others. He wants the Council to grant his application for a dropped kerb and move street furniture to allow access.
6. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s handling of his 2015 application are late. The issue dates back almost five years and I have seen no good reasons to look at it now. The Council’s policy has changed and Mr X has reapplied for permission but this has been refused. Any complaint about its more recent decision is in-time but it is unlikely we would find fault in the way it was reached. The decision complies with the Council’s policy and it has explained the reasons it will not make an exception in Mr X’s case. It is not for us to question the merits of the Council’s decision in these circumstances and it is therefore unlikely further investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because part of the complaint is late and it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council in its handling of Mr X’s more recent application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman