Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his application for a dropped kerb. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision not to grant him permission for a dropped kerb. He also complains about the Council’s policy for dropped kerbs generally. He says there are not enough parking spaces and that current arrangements are dangerous.

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 or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Mr X’s complaints and the Council’s responses. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council’s policy for dropped kerbs requires that applicants have an off-road parking space measuring at least 2.75m width at the property boundary and 4.75m depth from the back of the footway to the front of a building.
5. Mr X says he has a parking space 4.75m wide and 2.5m deep in front of his house that he could use to park a car parallel to the road. He refers to parking issues along his road including double-parking, obstruction of the footway and lack of space.
6. The Council rejected Mr X’s application as it did not meet the minimum requirements. It has previously carried out a trial in certain areas of the city allowing dropped kerbs leading to parallel parking spaces but says it ended the trial as vehicles parked overhanging property boundaries and blocking footways. It also has concerns about the safety implications of the manoeuvres required to access parallel parking spaces and says the impact on on-street parking is too great.
7. Mr X believes he has not been treated fairly. He wants the Council to show flexibility and approve his application for a dropped kerb.
8. The Council is entitled to set its own policies regarding the requirements for dropped kerbs and it is not for us to say it must change it. The Council has explained the reasons it will not accept applications where parking spaces are parallel to the road and these are rational and based on experience of the unsuccessful trial.
9. Mr X is already concerned about the lack of parking spaces on his road and for every dropped kerb the Council could approve residents would lose more than one on-road parking space, likely making the issue worse.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman