Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal of the complainant’s application for a dropped kerb licence. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault that affected the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained about the Council’s refusal of his application for a dropped kerb licence. The licence would enable him to drive across the footway to access off-street parking at his home. Mr B says the unreasonably refused to exercise discretion to grant him a licence.

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’.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. 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 that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint and background information provided by the Council. I have also seen information, including the guidance for licence applicants, available on the Council’s website. Mr B commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr B wishes to access off-street parking at his home. Because of its location, he needed both a licence from the Council, which is the highways authority, and planning permission from his local district council, which is the planning authority.
7. Mr B obtained planning permission but the Council refused his licence application because his home is on a lay-by. The Council’s guidance is clear it will not permit a dropped kerb in a lay-by except where there are existing parking restrictions. No such restrictions exist in Mr B’s case.
8. Mr B wrote to the Council to appeal against the refusal. The Council does not have a separate appeals procedure for licence refusals. However, it considered Mr B’s concerns through both stages of its complaint so there was independent scrutiny of the original decision. The Council decided not to alter its decision.
9. While Mr B has correctly argued the Council should be prepared to exercise discretion to go against its guidance, this does not mean it must do so. I am satisfied the Council has considered Mr B’s reasons for disagreeing with its decision but has not been persuaded by them.
10. I consider there was some confusion in information the Council provided to Mr B about the complaints procedure, including that he could appeal to the Ombudsman. As stated above, we cannot question a decision made without fault and do not act as an appeal body. However, I do not consider any fault there may have been altered the outcome in any way.
11. Although it does not affect my view of this complaint, the Council has told me it is establishing a separate appeal procedure for dealing with future licence refusals. We would not expect that procedure to be applied retrospectively to previous applications.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council that affected its decision to refuse Mr B’s licence application. In the absence of fault, we cannot question the merits of that decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman