Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to grant permission for the complainant to build a drive and 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 about the Council’s decision that he cannot build a dropped kerb. He says other properties, in similar positions, have been granted permission. He says the Council delayed responding to him and did not answer some emails. He wants the Council to explain why other homes have a dropped kerb and why nothing has been done to help him.

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 email exchanges between Mr X and the Council. I looked at an image of Mr X’s house on streetview and photographs he provided. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. Mr X lives in a house which is set back from the road. Next to his fence is a public footpath, a large grass verge, a wider public footpath, a layby, and then the road.
5. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb. The Council refused the application because his home is set back from the road behind a grass verge and two paths. Mr X challenged the decision. His main points were that there are other properties, in a similar situation, which have a dropped kerb and having a drive would mean two cars could park away from the road. In response, the Council confirmed that the traffic and highways team would not give consent. It said that other properties, with a dropped kerb, live next to a single verge and path. The Council said it had just refused consent for a dropped kerb for a property in the same position as Mr X’s home (with two paths and a large verge).
6. There has been extensive email correspondence between Mr X and the Council. The Council has explained that planning permission would be needed but would likely be refused. It explained that it, as the landowner of the verge and path, would not give consent. It explained there are safety issues. It also explained that his house was designed to be set back to improve the visual amenity of the area. A dropped kerb and drive would not be in keeping with this design. The Council also explained that it has the right, as the landowner, to decide how its land can be used. It said the project would cause the loss of at least one parking space which it did not support.
7. Mr X disagrees. He says the Council does not maintain the verges and other houses have crossovers which have involved the loss of a parking space. He also says there are no health and safety issues linked to drives, but only due to congestion caused by on-street parking.

Assessment

8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body and cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with. I have no power to tell the Council to give Mr X permission for a dropped kerb.
9. The Council explained to Mr X why it had refused his application for a dropped kerb. It also explained why it approved some other applications and the difference between the applications. I have considered the image of Mr X’s house, and the area between the property and the road, and the Council’s reasons are consistent with the condition of the street. It is also the case that, of the images I have seen, none of the properties have a dropped kerb which goes over two paths and a large verge. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision but that disagreement is not an indication of administrative fault.
10. Mr X complains the Council did not answer some emails. That may be so. But it is also true that there has been extensive email correspondence and the Council has repeatedly explained its position to Mr X. In addition, we do not investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the main issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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