Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject the complainant’s application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb. He says his property is identical to others where a dropped kerb has been approved. He disagrees with the Council’s decision to implement a new depth requirement for crossovers. He wants the Council to reverse the decision.

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 correspondence between Mr X and the Council. I considered the dropped kerb policy I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Dropped kerb policy – from May 2020

4. The policy says the drive must have a minimum depth of 4.8 metres. The reason for the requirement is to stop vehicles overhanging the pavement. The policy says the rules apply to all applications received from May 2020. The policy also says that previous rules do not set a precedent.

What happened

5. Some of the properties in Mr X’s road, where the drive is the same length as Mr X’s driveway, have a dropped kerb. In July 2020 Mr X applied for a dropped kerb. He did not measure the drive because he assumed the Council would approve the application.
6. The Council inspected the site and took measurements. The Council rejected the application because Mr X’s drive is 4.2 metres long. Mr X appealed but the Council confirmed the decision because he does not meet the depth requirement.
7. In response to his complaint the Council repeated the reason for rejecting the application and explained the depth requirement is to stop vehicles overhanging the path. It explained that it measures every application and other successful applications that Mr X had referred to met the depth requirement in place when the application was made.
8. Mr X accepts the Council has correctly implemented the policy but disagrees with the depth requirement. He says it is absurd to refuse new requests when other people have had their applications approved. He says there are no overhanging cars in the area and his car would not overhang. Mr X wants the Council to approve his application.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The policy in place when Mr X applied for a dropped kerb said the drive must have a minimum depth of 4.8 metres. Mr X’s drive is 4.2 metres. The Council’s decision is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. The policy also says the Council will only assess an application in line with the rules in force when the application is made. This means that the other applications that were approved in the past have no bearing on Mr X’s application.
10. Mr X disagrees with the policy but it is for the Council, not us, to decide the terms of the dropped kerb policy. If Mr X thinks the depth requirement is wrong he would need to lobby his local councillors for a change in the policy. We do not act as an appeal body and cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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