Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal of an application for a dropped kerb. He is unlikely to find fault in how Council considered the application and so cannot question the merits of its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained the Council wrongly refused his application for a dropped kerb to allow access to off-street parking at his home. He says the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) granted permission for the access on appeal. He also says the Council did not properly consider his application and was wrongly influenced by his neighbours and local councillors.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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 that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint and background information provided by the Council. I have also seen information on the websites of the Council and PINS.
5. Mr B commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. The Council’s information on applying for a dropped kerb is clear the applicant must also get planning permission for off-street parking in certain circumstances.
7. Mr B needed planning permission and so applied to the Council for this. After the Council refused his application, Mr B successfully appealed to PINS and which granted planning permission.
8. PINS is only concerned with planning matters. In his decision, the inspector at PINS made clear the appeal did not relate to the installation of the dropped kerb. The planning permission granted related to the formation of the access and works within Mr B’s property.
9. Mr B then applied for the dropped kerb. The Council refused his application solely because it did not meet the published criteria. It explained its reasons to Mr B.
10. While Mr B believes the Council was influenced by other parties, I have seen nothing to suggest it took account of matters it should not have done.
11. We do not provide an appeal against the Council’s decision not to allow a dropped kerb. I have seen no evidence of fault in how the Council made that decision and so cannot question the merits of it.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault affected the Council’s decision not to allow Mr B’s application for a dropped kerb.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman