Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an 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. Mr X says the Council has applied the rules too rigidly. He says the rules about the minimum width could be adjusted to suit his situation.

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 the rules for qualifying for a dropped kerb and looked at an image of Mr X’s house on streetview. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Dropped kerb rules

4. The rules say the Council will refuse an application if the dropped kerb would be on a junction or a bend. There must be a minimum of 10 metres from the middle of the junction to the start of the dropped kerb. The minimum width for a dropped kerb is 3.7 metres.

What happened

5. Mr X’s house is the first property in the street and is next to a junction. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb. The Council refused the application because it would be too close to the junction and there is not enough space for the minimum width of 3.7 metres combined with having at least 10 metres to the junction.
6. Mr X disagrees with the decision. He says the Council has been too rigid and he is aware of other properties that are near junctions but have dropped kerbs. He says the traffic is light and it is short-sighted to apply the same rules in every case. Mr X wants the Council to relax the rules and allow him to have a shorter dropped kerb which would be 10 metres from the junction.

Assessment

7. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The rules say the Council will refuse an application if the crossover would not have a minimum width of 3.7 metres and be at least 10 metres from a junction. Mr X cannot satisfy these rules so there is no suggestion of fault in the Council’s decision to refuse the application. There may be other properties, near junctions, which have a dropped kerb but the Council can only determine applications in relation to the current rules. The Council assesses each application against the current rules and cannot relax the rules so people can have a dropped kerb contrary to the rules.
8. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. He cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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