Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb. Mr X wants to be able to park on his property due to a lack of parking on the public highway. The Council has refused his application. It says the area to the front of Mr X’s property does not meet the size requirements in its dropped kerb policy.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb so he could park on an area to the front of his property. The Council rejected Mr X’s application because it did not meet the requirements set out in its published policy. In its response to Mr X’s complaint the Council said:
• Its policy requires a hardstanding area to be “a minimum of 2.4 metres wide by 4.8 metres deep for perpendicular parking, or 5.6 metres wide by 3 metres deep for parallel parking.”
• A site visit has been carried out. The area to the front of Mr X’s property was measured as 3.5 metres wide and 3.7 metres deep – this is below the required size.
• Mr X claimed the hardstanding area to be 5.31 metres wide and 3.61 metres deep. The Council did not agree with these measurements – but the area would still not be large enough.
• The current policy was introduced in 2015 to try and prevent overhanging vehicles. Houses with smaller hardstanding areas may have had a dropped kerb granted prior to 2015.
• Even if Mr X removed the wall to the front of his property and relocated the steps, the area would not meet the requirements of the Council’s policy.
5. The Council has considered Mr X’s application for a dropped kerb. It has explained to Mr X it does not meet the requirements contained in its published policy. It has considered extra information from Mr X and has decided its policy has been properly applied. The Council’s decision is in line with its published policy which is on its website. While I know Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman