Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a dropped kerb because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council, In addition, there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

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 some neighbours have dropped kerbs and the Council delayed replying to his appeal. He is worried his car will be stolen and he does not want to walk across the grass to reach his 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the policy and photographs of the site. I considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The policy says the Council is committed to preserving grass and will refuse dropped kerb applications which would cause the loss of grass. The Council offers some flexibility if the loss of grass would not be significant.
5. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb in November 2020. The vehicle crossover would need to pass over two footpaths and a large area of grass verge. The Council inspected the site and decided to refuse the application because it would involve the loss of an area of grass of 3.6 metres times 8.6 metres.
6. Mr X appealed against the decision. The Council responded in October and confirmed its decision.
7. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The policy says the Council will refuse an application if it would involve the loss of grass. Mr X’s application involves the loss of a large area of grass so the Council’s decision is consistent with the policy. In addition, each application is individually assessed against the current policy; the fact that other people have dropped kerbs does not mean new applications will be approved when that would be contrary to the current policy. We are not an appeal body and cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.
8. The Council took a long time to reply to Mr X’s appeal but this, as an isolated issue, does not need an investigation. In addition, the delay had limited impact because the appeal decision confirmed Mr X cannot have a dropped kerb.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman