Summary: Mr B complains that the Council wrongly approved his application for a dropped kerb even though it did not meet the criteria because of the presence of a disabled parking bay. He says that, because of the position of the parking bay and the absence of double yellow lines, his drive is frequently blocked by parked vehicles preventing him from using it. The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault in failing to inform Mr B that the parking bay could not be relocated and that the access to his drive would have to be installed at an angle. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and make a payment.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council wrongly approved his application for a dropped kerb even though it did not meet the criteria due to the presence of a disabled parking bay. Because of the position of the parking bay and absence of double yellow lines, Mr B’s drive is frequently blocked by parked vehicles preventing him from using his drive.
2. Mr B says the Council failed to tell him the disabled parking bay could not be moved and, if it had done so, he would not have proceeded with the application and incurred the cost of installing the vehicle crossover and constructing hardstanding which he is unable to use.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. 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. 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)
5. 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

6. I have considered all the information provided by Mr B, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
7. Mr B 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 policy

8. The Council’s front garden parking criteria states that crossovers will not be constructed unless there is a suitable hard-standing in place. It also says the Council will refuse crossover requests where this will result in the removal or reduction of a designated parking bay in a controlled parking zone (CPZ).
9. The criteria states residents may apply for a white ‘T bar’ to be painted on the carriageway across the extent of the dropped kerb to highlight the area of the vehicle crossing and deter inconsiderate parking. The markings are advisory but, where a vehicle parks across any dropped kerb without the permission of the property owner/occupier, a penalty charge notice can be issued.

Key facts

10. Mr B lives in a cul-de-sac. wanted to install a drive on his property so, in November 2020, he applied to the Council’s footway team (‘FT’) for a dropped kerb.
11. There is a disabled parking bay (‘the bay’) near the entrance to Mr B’s property so, for the dropped kerb to be approved, FT needed approval from the Parking and Environmental Design team (PED) to relocate the bay.
12. In January 2020 PED advised FT it would not support re-locating the bay because it was positioned where it was so there was less impact on access issues. However, it said if the bay was to be moved slightly, it would be for Highways to decide whether emergency access and pedestrian access could be maintained.
13. In February 2021 FT approved the application and Mr B paid the amount requested (£871.08) for the work. Mr B spent £1500 creating the driveway and provided evidence that it had been completed as requested. The dropped kerb was installed on 23 March 2021.
14. Mr B assumed that, as the application had been approved, PED had agreed to relocate the bay. But it was not moved and Mr B heard nothing further. He was finding it difficult to access his drive because of cars parking on the single yellow lines in the cul-de-sac. He complained to FT that, despite paying for a driveway and a dropped kerb, he was unable to use the drive without fear of being blocked in. He asked for the bay to be relocated.
15. Mr B chased FT several times during March and April 2021 and then made a complaint. In its stage 1 response, the Council explained PED had declined to move the bay and the application was only approved provided the footway crossing was constructed at an angle. Mr B said he was unaware of this and the crossing had not been constructed at an angle. The complaints officer confirmed the dropped kerb would be repositioned.
16. Mr B was unhappy with the Council’s response and escalated his complaint to stage 2. The Council responded in June 2021. It said PED had declined move the bay but said there would be enough room if the dropped kerb was moved slightly to the left. To avoid refusing the application, FT took further measurements to see whether it was possible to achieve access by entering the drive at an angle. It decided this was possible and so approved the application. The Council apologised that officers had not specifically told Mr B about this, but said the quotation letter mentioned that the footway crossing was to be constructed on the left as marked. However, the contractor did not see the faded marking on the kerb when installing the crossing and so did not install it at an angle.
17. The crossing was re-installed at an angle but Mr B continued to have problems accessing his drive.
18. In August 2021 the Highways team suggested the issue could be resolved by altering the angle of access by widening the dropped kerb and providing a white ‘T-bar’ outside the single yellow line to cover Mr B’s access route to keep the area free from parked vehicles. It stated, ‘this unusual layout will be an “exceptional” circumstance… as an acknowledgement of an error occurring in the process”. Highways asked FT to check on site whether this could be achieved and, if so, arrange for contractors to complete the work.
19. The Council amended the kerb line and added a T-bar road marking. But Mr B said this had made no difference to the situation and vehicles continued to block the entrance to his drive.
20. In December 2021, in a further attempt to resolve the situation, the Council agreed to relocate the disabled bay slightly. It accepted that, in its current position, if the bay was occupied, this obscured the line of sight to enter or exit Mr B’s driveway.
21. Mr B says relocating the bay has not resolved the problem because vehicles are parking next to the disabled bay, blocking his access. He says he has frequently had to contact the parking enforcement team about this but no action has been taken.

Analysis

22. Mr B says, if he had known the bay would not be relocated, he would not have proceeded with his application and incurred costs of £2371. He says FT was aware the bay would not be relocated but proceeded anyway, installing the crossing at an angle without consulting him about this. He wants the Council to re-locate the disabled bay or install double yellow lines to prevent cars parking in such a way as to block his access. He says that, because vehicles are allowed to park on the single yellow line after 5.30 pm and at weekends, this prevents him accessing his drive.
23. The Council is satisfied that now the crossing has been repositioned and the bay has been moved there is enough room for Mr B to manoeuvre on and off his drive. It says the obstruction is being caused by drivers parking inconsiderately on the single yellow line adjacent to the bay and this is a matter for parking enforcement. It will not agree to install double yellow lines. It has explained that a single yellow line has been in place since 2019 and forms part of the CPZ to keep the turning area clear for motorists and pedestrians. To install double yellow lines would require a Traffic Management Order which is a lengthy and costly process and, in any event, double yellow lines are not installed to prevent vehicles blocking access to an off-street parking area. They are installed at junctions to keep areas clear for the motorist to be able to see when entering and exiting a road. The Council says, if it were to do this, it would be setting a precedent for other residents who have made similar requests. I find no grounds to criticise the Council’s decision on this.
24. Mr B has suggested the disabled bay is repositioned horizontally rather than vertically in the cul-de-sac. The highways team has advised this would not be an option because it may hinder vehicular access/egress. It would also not be ideal because the bay is allocated for disabled driver parking. There are no grounds to question this decision which is a matter for officers’ professional judgement.
25. However, I find there was a service failure in the way the Council communicated with Mr B and explained its decision making. It should have advised him that it did not intend to move the bay but could install the crossing on an angle. He would then have had the opportunity to decide whether to proceed in the full knowledge of all the facts. I accept the Council was trying to find a way to assist Mr B by deciding to install the crossing at an angle so as not to refuse his application, but it should have communicated this to Mr B and given him the opportunity to decide whether to proceed on that basis.
26. The Council accepted there had been an error in the process and tried to resolve the situation by adding a white T-bar and further extending the dropped kerb. It also slightly moved the disabled bay. Although it is satisfied there is now sufficient room for Mr B to access his drive, vehicles are frequently parking on the single yellow line and blocking his access. Although this is inconsiderate parking and a matter for parking enforcement, it means Mr B is unable to use his drive on a regular basis. He is adamant he would not have gone ahead with the application and incurred significant costs had he known the disabled bay would not be moved.
27. I find the Council’s service failure has caused Mr B injustice. He has been put to significant inconvenience in the day-to-day use of his driveway and has been put to time and trouble in pursuing the matter with the Council and the Ombudsman.
28. However, Mr B has the use of his driveway and dropped kerb to some extent and the Council is not responsible for residents’ inconsiderate parking. If they were parking in a considerate manner, Mr B would be able to access his drive. The correct mechanism for dealing with inconsiderate parking is to report it to civil enforcement officers or the police. These reasons, I do not consider it appropriate to recommend that the Council refunds Mr B’s expenses. I do, however, consider it should make a symbolic payment in recognition of the injustice caused.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. The Council has agreed that, within one month, it will apologise to Mr B and pay him £500 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble he has been put to.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I find the Council was at fault in failing to inform Mr B that the disabled parking bay could not be relocated and that the access to his drive would have to be installed at an angle.
31. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman