Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not grant permission 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 Mrs X, complains that the Council will not grant permission for a dropped kerb. She says it should allow her to park horizontally across her 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 dropped kerb policy and comments Mrs X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Dropped kerb policy

4. There is a minimum depth requirement of 4.8 metres. In some circumstances the Council will relax the depth requirement to 4 metres but the person must sign a legal agreement with the Council.

What happened

5. Mrs X applied for a dropped kerb. The Council rejected the application because her drive has a depth of 3.36 metres.
6. Mrs X disagrees with the decision. She has great difficulty parking due to the amount of people parking in the area. She says she could park horizontally because the drive is 6.18 metres wide. She would be willing to enter into a legal agreement with the Council to facilitate this. She says the Council should exercise discretion and grant consent. She says the Council is at fault for not having a policy which incorporates an element of discretion.
7. In response to her complaint the Council explained that since the current policy started in 2010 it has not granted permission for a dropped kerb to anyone who did not meet the depth requirement. It said it does exercise discretion by sometimes granting permission for a dropped kerb when the depth is between 4 metres and 4.8 metres. It confirmed it does not permit horizontal parking. It agreed that some properties have dropped kerbs which do not meet the current rules but explained that those properties had their applications assessed under previous rules.
8. Mrs X says a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) would help with the parking congestion. The Council says it will soon do a perception survey in the area to find out residents’ views about parking. Depending on the outcome of the survey it might start the process of introducing a CPZ. However, this would be subject to a formal consultation.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mrs X’s drive has a depth of 3.36 metres. The policy says the depth must be at least 4.8 metres. Mrs X’s application does not meet the dropped kerb requirements so the Council’s decision is consistent with the policy and there is no reason to start an investigation. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body and cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.
10. Mrs X says the Council should exercise discretion. She disagrees that the Council exercises any discretion by sometimes granting consent when the depth is at least 4 metres. But, the relaxation of the rules does represent an element of discretion. In addition, it is not possible for people to challenge decisions, by arguing for discretion, simply because they disagree. For example, if someone does not qualify for council tax support (a Council benefit) they cannot argue that the Council must exercise discretion and award benefit.
11. I appreciate Mrs X has problems parking but this applies to most people who need a dropped kerb and live in a city close to a station. There is nothing particularly unique about her circumstances which would perhaps indicate the Council should exercise discretion. For example, Mrs X has not said she is a wheelchair user or has a disability which would mean she must have a dropped kerb for reasons linked to a disability.
12. The Council has to apply the policy consistently and it would be unfair to grant consent to Mrs X when it has refused all other applications, since 2010, when someone does not meet the depth requirements. There is a degree of unfairness in that some people have dropped kerbs, with short drives, which were approved under old rules. But, this simply reflects the reality of policies changing over time. If Mrs X thinks the policy should be changed she would need to present her views to councillors. However, it would be for the Council to decide whether to change the policy.
13. The parking situation might improve but that will depend on the views of residents in the area and whether there is majority support for a CPZ.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman