Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s application to put a dropped kerb across the entrance of his property. This is because the Ombudsman is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council has dealt with his application for a vehicle crossover outside his property. Mr X says his request complies with the Council’s policy and should be allowed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. 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 or continue with 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

4. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision and have considered his comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

5. A dropped kerb (also known as a vehicle crossover) is an alteration to the footway. Residents can apply to the Council for a dropped kerb to allow vehicle access to a driveway or parking area. The Council charges a non-refundable application fee. If the application is accepted the kerb will be lowered and the pavement or verge strengthened to prevent damage to the highway.

What happened

6. A dropped kerb already exists between Mr X and his neighbours’ property. In 2020, Mr X applied to the Council to build a separate crossover in front of his home to allow vehicle access to his property.
7. An officer from the Council visited Mr X’s home to assess the application. Following this visit, the Council refused Mr X’s request for a separate dropped kerb as it said it would result in the loss of on-road parking. However, the Council said the existing dropped kerb could be extended by 2.4 metres to allow access to the area in front of Mr X’s home.
8. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision to refuse his request for a separate dropped kerb. He says his proposal would allow the retention of an on-road parking space. Mr X also says the Council’s suggestion to extend the existing crossover is not an option as he will need to remove an existing wall which will incur significant costs.

Assessment

9. I will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s application for a vehicle crossover. This is because it is unlikely I would find fault by the Council.
10. The Council’s policy sets out the criteria for dropped kerb applications. The policy says the Council will try and minimise loss of on-road parking spaces. The Council says Mr X’s request for a separate vehicle crossover will leave only 4.4 metres which is not sufficient for use as a parking space and could result in safety issues. However, the Council’s suggestion to extend the existing crossover will allow enough space for one parking space to be retained. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to refuse his request for a separate crossover, but this was a decision it was entitled to make. As the Council’s decision is in line with its policy, it is unlikely I would find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman