Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application for a dropped kerb and not to issue a refund. 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 to refuse his application for a dropped kerb. He also complains the Council will not issue a refund.

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 response. I considered the dropped kerb rules and looked at a computer image of Mr X’s home and road. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Dropped kerb policy

4. The policy says the Council will refuse an application if the dropped kerb would cross into a layby. The policy also says there is a non-refundable application fee of £103. When people make an application they are required to confirm that they have read the rules and they understand the application fee will not returned if the application is rejected.

What happened

5. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb in late August. He called the Council in September and was told the application had been rejected. The Council sent a decision letter on 2 October saying his application was refused because the crossing would be in a layby.
6. Mr X complained about the decision and about the Council not giving him a refund. He said neighbouring properties had dropped kerbs. In response, the Council explained that the rules state that a crossing into a layby will be refused and that the application fee is non-refundable. The Council explained that the application process includes confirming that the applicant has read and understands these conditions. The Council also explained that neighbouring properties would have been assessed at different times when different rules applied.
7. Mr X is dissatisfied with the Council’s response. He says the Council delayed giving him a decision, will not give him a refund, and has discriminated against him.

Assessment

8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The policy says the Council will refuse permission for a dropped kerb that involves a layby and that the application fee is non-refundable. The application form makes these two points clear. The Council’s decisions are consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.
9. In addition, there was no undue delay by the Council and no evidence of discrimination. The rules apply to all applicants and the Council explained the neighbouring properties were assessed under the rules that applied when each neighbour made their application.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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