Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful 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, complains that the Council refused his application for a dropped kerb and kept the application fee. He says there are many properties in his road where there is a tree close to a property with a dropped kerb. He says his mother needs a dropped kerb for health and mobility reasons.

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 response. I looked at photographs of Mr X’s house and other homes with dropped kerbs. I considered the dropped kerb policy and I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Dropped kerb policy

4. The policy says the Council will refuse an application if the installation of a dropped kerb would damage a tree. The Council may take advice from a tree officer. The policy says there is a non-refundable application fee. The policy says applications may be refused which might have been granted under previous policies. The policy stresses that previous policy decisions do not take precedence over the current policy.

What happened

5. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb. There is a tree on the pavement in front of the proposed location of the kerb.
6. Tree officers did an inspection and did not grant consent for removal of the tree and said the tree could not be moved. The Council refused the application because the kerb might damage the tree and the tree cannot be moved due to its age and size.
7. Mr X complained. He said there are many houses in his road where there are dropped kerbs near to a tree. He explained his mother needs to park close to the house for health reasons. The Council repeated that the tree officers had not supported the application. The Council also referred Mr X to the dropped kerb policy which explains that applications will only be assessed in relation to the current policy. It confirmed the decision but said his mother could make an application for a disabled parking bay.
8. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. He has repeated that there are other houses which have a dropped kerb near a tree. He says the tree is ugly and makes a mess. He wants the Council to remove the tree and plant a different type of tree elsewhere. He also complains that the Council kept the application fee.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council’s tree officers inspected the tree and found that it might be damaged by the installation of a dropped kerb and it could not safely be moved. The policy says the Council may seek advice from its tree officers and that an application may be refused if it is not supported by the tree officer. The Council’s decision is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.
10. The policy says that successful applications under previous polices will not over-ride the current policy. It also says there is a non-refundable application fee.
11. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. He cannot intervene simple because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.

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