Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject Mr X’s application for a dropped curb outside his property. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council made the decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped curb. He said the Council’s decision has financially disadvantaged him as he has been unable to swop his petrol car for an electric car.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied to the Council for a dropped curb in 2019. The Council completed a site visit and refused the application because it did not meet the criteria as set-out in its policy. It said:
• there was insufficient space in Mr X’s front garden for off-street parking;
• the Council had a grass verge retention policy therefore it could not remove the grass verge outside his property;
• the road outside his property was not wide enough for a vehicle to manoeuvre onto the driveway without removing an on-street parking bay.
6. Mr X disagreed with the Council’s assessment. The Council completed a further site visit to review its initial decision. The Council did not change its decision for the reasons set out above.
7. Mr X complained to the Council in July 2021. He disagreed with the Council’s measurements and said the grass verge should have previously been paved.
8. The Council responded to his complaint. It reiterated its initial reasons for rejecting the application. It referred to the Council’s dropped curb policy and referenced how it had applied that to Mr X’s application. It said the Council was considering changes to its dropped curb policy and once these were agreed, Mr X could submit a new application.
9. I will not investigate this complaint because the Council’s decision to reject Mr X’s application is consistent with its policy. It has completed two site visits to assess the application. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman