Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application 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 to refuse his application for a dropped kerb.

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)
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I looked at photographs of the application site and a tree which is blocking the drive. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council’s dropped kerb policy

5. The Council will only remove a tree, to facilitate a dropped kerb, in exceptional circumstances where the tree is dead, dangerous or diseased.

What happened

6. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb in 2019. The Council refused the application because a tree would need to be removed. The Council’s tree officers did not support the application because the tree is healthy.
7. Mr X subsequently reported that the tree’s roots were damaging his wall and lifting the pavement. In late 2019 the Council re-surfaced the path. In May 2020 an officer inspected the area and found no damage to the path or wall. The photographs I have seen do not show that the tree is causing any damage and the tree looks healthy.
8. Mr X continued to press the Council for consent to build a dropped kerb. The Council confirmed he could not build a dropped kerb because it would mean the removal of a healthy tree.
9. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision and says it is failing to see the bigger picture. He has offered to pay to remove the tree and plant another one further along the street. He says that removing a parked car from the street would ease congestion. He has explained he wants a dropped kerb so he can buy an electric car and access a charging point. Mr X wants the Council to give permission for the removal of the tree and construction of a dropped kerb.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. He does not intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.
11. The Council’s policy says it will only remove a tree, to allow construction of a dropped kerb, in exceptional circumstances and where the tree is diseased or dying. The tree outside Mr X’s home is healthy so he does not qualify, under the policy, to have the tree removed. The Council’s decision is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. In addition, officers have recently inspected the area and found that the tree is not damaging the path or wall.

Back to top

Final decision

12. 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