Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb outside his property. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complained about the Council rejecting his application for a dropped kerb to access his property. He says that he lost the £165 non-refundable fee and also is unable to use a driveway and hardstanding which he paid to have constructed.

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
• 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has commented on a copy of my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says he constructed a driveway when he bought his home in 2019 to take his vehicle off the street. He applied for a dropped kerb and vehicle crossing when he found out that the Council had approved a controlled parking zone for his area before he moved in.
5. The Council rejected his application because it would involve the loss of a parking space within the controlled parking zone. Mr X complained that he had lost the non-returnable fee and that his work to create the driveway had been wasted effort because it would not allow the crossing. The Council advised Mr X that although not yet in operation, the parking scheme had been confirmed before he applied. The application form guidance states that:

“The Council will refuse crossover requests where this will result in the removal or reduction of a designated parking bay in an existing CPZ or where a CPZ or other parking scheme has been formally approved but not yet implemented.”

6. Mr X applied when this policy was in force and consequently lost his non-returnable fee for the crossing. The Council was not aware that he had arranged for the driveway to be constructed earlier because this is normally carried out once approval for a dropped kerb and vehicle crossing has been obtained.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman