Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb at his property. We found fault by the Council as it delayed responding to Mr X’s query about its decision to refuse the application. The Council has provided a suitable remedy. We found no fault by the Council in the way it made a decision on Mr X’s application for a dropped kerb so have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant Mr X. He complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb at his property. Mr X says he needs the dropped kerb so he can park his car on his frontage because of his disability which impacts on his mobility. Mr X says the Council has failed to consider his disability and its decision will restrict his independence, affect his mental health, and cause him distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have read the papers submitted by Mr X and spoken to him about the complaint. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s dropped kerb crossing policy (policy)

7. The Council’s policy explains a dropped kerb enables vehicles to cross the public pavement ( footway) to access a private driveway. It allows for safe off-road parking. The dropped kerb area remains part of the public highway and is retained by the Council.
8. The policy says an applicant needs room of at least 4.75m in length at the front the property to park a vehicle and the driveway must be in place before a dropped kerb can be constructed. A kerb can only be dropped by a person applying to the Council and it will carry out the construction works. The Council charges a non-refundable application fee which includes inspecting the proposed kerb location. If the application is approved the Council will then advise of the construction costs. The Council will reject an application on several grounds including if:
• there is less than 4.75m from back of footway to front of building. Driveways on smaller frontages will not be granted permission as overhanding vehicles may cause obstructions.
9. The Council’s website on dropped kerb applications explains the Council’s policy and advises applicants to check the pre-application advice page for further guidance before sending an application. This includes checking the frontage is at least 4.75m from the back of the footway to the front of the property. The Council’s website provides photographs to help with measuring.

Events leading to the complaint

10. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
11. In December 2019 the Council wrote to Mr X after a routine highway inspection noted a vehicle being driven over the footway and verge to park on Mr X’s private property. The Council told Mr X he needed to have a footway crossing built by the Highway Authority (the Council) to cross the footway or verge with a vehicle. He also needed an appropriate area within his property boundary to park the vehicle. The Council advised Mr X to request a Dropped Kerb Information pack which explained the procedure for applying for a dropped kerb and arranging installation.
12. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb to his property at the end of December 2019. Council Highway officers carried out an inspection of Mr X’s home. The officers measured the frontage at the property and found it was 4.4m long so did not meet the Council’s requirements to be 4.75m in length. The Council declined Mr X’s application as the frontage was 0.35m short.
13. Mr X telephoned and queried the Council’s decision in March 2020. Mr X said he drove a small car, was disabled, and had a Blue Badge. Mr X said he had not been given permission, but his neighbour had also applied and been granted a dropped kerb. Mr X considered he had plenty of space to park a vehicle on his drive.
14. The Council explained during the COVID-19 pandemic its Highway Services faced challenges in responding to the volume and complexity of cases which impacted on responding to complaints. The Council replied to Mr X in March 2021 and apologised for the delay in responding to his query. The Council confirmed it had reassessed Mr X’s application taking into account his personal circumstances and the extra information he provided. The Council confirmed that to have a dropped kerb crossing outside his property he needed to have a front garden length of 4.75m from back of footpath to the building. Officers had measured the frontage at Mr X’s property, and it did not meet the minimum requirements set out in the Council’s policy.
15. Mr X complained to the Council and asked for a review of the decision he had insufficient frontage to accommodate a parked vehicle. Mr X considered there was enough space to park two cars and more than 4.75m.
16. An independent officer reviewed the decision. The officer expressed sympathy about Mr X’s parking issues. But explained the Council could not install a dropped kerb crossing where the frontage was less than 4.75m from the back of the footway to the property. Mr X’s property at 4.4m had less than the required depth so the Council refused his application. The officer confirmed the figure of 4.75m was the nationally accepted standard length for a parking bay by local authorities. The officer explained the failure to have the required depth of frontage resulted in ‘the potential for vehicles to overhang the footway. This has safety implications as it creates an obstruction to the free passage of pedestrians and a potential danger.’
17. The officer noted Mr X said he had a small car, but the Council needed to consider what might happen in the future. The resident may buy a larger car or sell the property to a person who drives a larger car. The Council considered overhanging vehicles caused a potential hazard to pedestrians.
18. The officer confirmed the Council approved the application of Mr X’s neighbour because his property frontage was more than 4.75m in length. So, it complied with the Council’s policy.
19. The officer told Mr X the owner of a property has no automatic right to have a vehicular crossing installed. And it was at the discretion of the Highway Authority acting under its statutory powers. The officer suggested Mr X contact highway officers to see if there were other options that could be installed outside or close to his property such as a disabled bay advisory marking.
20. In responding to my enquiries on the complaint the Council says because Mr X’s property is near to a roundabout there is not enough space for a disabled parking bay close to his property. It also says it is not the Highway Authority’s responsibility to provide parking for residents who own a motor vehicle. Drivers are permitted to park their vehicles on the highway wherever safe and legal to do so.

My assessment

21. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on Mr X’s application. The Council’s policy says it will not approve an application if there is less than 4.75m frontage at a property. Mr X’s frontage is 4.4m in length. So, the Council’s decision to refuse the application followed its policy in force at the time.
22. In addition, the reason for the restriction is to stop cars overhanging the footway. Mr X provided extra information about his personal circumstances and disability. The evidence shows the Council reassessed Mr X’s application. It has balanced this against its duty to other highway users. And it has decided it will not change its decision to refuse the application. It remained of the view Mr X’s frontage was too short and so would not overcome concerns about an overhanging vehicle causing a danger to pedestrians. As the Council has considered Mr X’s personal circumstances and disability when making its decision, I therefore cannot question the merits of the decision not to agree to the application.
23. Mr X disagrees with the policy, but it is for the Council, not us to decide the terms of its dropped kerb policy. If Mr X considers 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 we cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.
24. The Council took 12 months to respond to Mr X’s query about its decision to refuse his application. The Council acknowledged there was a delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic and challenges the Council was facing. I do not doubt the impact of the pandemic on the Council and its services. But I would have expected the Council to acknowledged Mr X’s query and respond sooner than the 12 months it took to do so. I consider the delay is fault by the Council but there is no evidence Mr X followed up his query during the 12 months. Because of this I consider the Council’s apology for the delay is suitable action for it to take to remedy any injustice caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I am completing my investigation. There is evidence of fault by the Council’s it delayed responding to Mr X’s query about its decision to refuse his dropped kerb application. The Council has provided a suitable remedy. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it made a decision on Mr X’s application for a dropped kerb.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman