Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about unsuccessful applications the complainant made for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mrs C, disagrees with the Council’s decision to refuse her applications for a dropped kerb.

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 have considered Mrs C’s complaint, her applications, and the Council’s responses. I have invited Mrs C to comment on a draft version of this decision.

What I found

Dropped kerbs

4. The Council has rules in place to ensure all dropped kerbs are implemented safely. The rules says that an application will not be granted if the access is less than 10m from a road junction.

What happened

5. Mrs C applied for a dropped kerb. On the application form Mrs C recorded that she did not live close to a road junction.
6. The Council rejected the application because the proposed access was less than 10m from a junction. The Council said this may cause visibility and therefore safety issues when using the proposed driveway.
7. Mrs C submitted a request for a disabled parking bay in a different location outside her property. Because the parking bay required a dropped kerb, the application was passed to the same team that had considered her previous application.
8. The Council rejected the application again. It said that a site visit had been carried out and it had been observed that the proposed access was still too close to the road junction.
9. Mrs C complained about the Council’s decisions. She said it was unfair that other properties on her street had been allowed dropped kerbs, despite being close to junctions.
10. The Council acknowledged that there may be other properties close to junctions with dropped kerbs, but said that the rules had recently been changed, and that it had considered Mrs C’s application under the new rules.

Assessment

11. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The rules say the Council will refuse an application if the access is less than 10m from a junction.
12. The Council carried out a site visit and concluded that the access points in both of Mrs C’s proposals would be less than 10m from a junction.
13. I have looked at an image of the location of Mrs C’s property, in relation to the junction and consider that the Council’s decision is consistent with the rules it has in place.
14. I cannot comment on applications for other properties on Mrs C’s street because each application should be assessed on the rules at the time. The Council has explained that it has recently changed its rules, which may explain this.
15. However, the key point here is that there is no fault in the way the Council assessed Mrs C’s applications. We do not act as an appeal body, and we cannot intervene simply because someone disagrees with a decision a council has made. I also have no power to tell the Council it should approve an application, particularly one that does not meet the rules.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman