Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse 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 Ms X, disagrees with the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb. She says the Council has been inconsistent because her neighbour, who has the same size front drive, was allowed to have a dropped kerb. Ms X says the presence of other dropped kerbs in the road proves there would not be a hazard if she had one.

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 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 Ms X and the Council. This includes the dropped kerb policy and the Council’s response. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council assesses dropped kerb applications against the current rules. The rules say an application will be approved if the front drive has a minimum depth of 4.8 metres and the person could park at 90 degrees to the footway. The rules say a dropped kerb will be refused if the car would have to park parallel to the road.
5. Ms X applied for a dropped kerb. The Council refused the application because the front drive does not meet the minimum depth requirement.
6. Ms X challenged the decision. She said her neighbour, whose property has the same dimensions, has a dropped kerb, as do other properties in the street. Ms X said the Council should be consistent and assess applications against the context of the area.
7. In response the Council said it had refused the application because Ms X’s property does not meet the current depth requirements. It said her neighbour’s dropped kerb was approved in 2008 when different rules applied and it assesses applications against the current rules.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. This is because the Council can only assess an application against the current rules and, under the current rules, Ms X’s home does not meet the size requirements. The Council’s decision is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. In addition, the Council explained that existing dropped kerbs were approved under previous rules which had different qualifying criteria. We do not act as an appeal body and we cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman