Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council told him to build hardstanding before getting consent for a dropped kerb. He also says that information on the Council’s website was updated after he submitted his dropped kerb application.

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.

(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. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X spoke to a Council officer in 2020. Mr X says the officer told him he could have a dropped kerb and should build the hardstanding before submitting an application. Mr X paid to install hardstanding.
5. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb on 7 June 2021. The Council refused the application because it was not accepting applications in his road. The Council refunded his fee.
6. In response to his complaint the Council explained it had not accepted new applications in that area since 2019. It said the website had been updated to reflect this and had all the correct information by 4 June. It said officers do not advise people to install hardstanding before getting consent for a dropped kerb. The Council confirmed it had correctly refused the application.
7. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council has no record of Mr X’s call to the Council in 2020 so I cannot check what the officer said. But, it is not Council policy to advise people to build hardstanding before having permission for a dropped kerb; this is explained in the notes that accompany the application form. I have no reason to doubt what Mr X says but, equally, the Council says the officer is experienced and aware of the policy. There is not enough evidence to conclude the officer misadvised Mr X.
8. The application notes list Mr X’s road as one where new applications are not accepted and the website was updated to reflect this by 4 June. Mr X applied on 7 June. I have seen information from the Council which confirms the website was updated before Mr X submitted his application. I have also seen a list of the principal roads which were updated; Mr X’s road does not appear in the list of principal roads because it is not a principal road. In addition, the decision to refuse the application was correct because applications submitted since 2019 for this location have been refused.
9. Mr X continues to assert that his road, when he applied, was not listed as one where dropped kerbs are not permitted. But, even if this is correct, it has not caused an injustice requiring an investigation. This is because Mr X had already built the hardstanding and he received a refund for the unsuccessful application.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman