Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. It is reasonable for Miss X to appeal the Council’s decision not to remove the tree which caused her application to be refused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a vehicle crossover (a dropped kerb). Miss X wants to be able to park on her property due to a lack of parking on the public highway.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered Miss X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

4. Miss X applied for a dropped kerb so she could park on an area to the front of her property. The Council rejected Miss X’s application because of a tree on the public highway close to Miss X’s home. Under the Council’s policy a dropped kerb could not be constructed within the root protection area of a tree, which is 12 times the diameter of its girth.
5. Miss X challenged the Council’s decision. She said the tree was dying and should be removed. Miss X said other properties in the street had dropped kerbs. Miss X explained how she was worried about her personal safety when she was unable to park close to her home. Miss X offered to pay for the tree to be removed and another tree planted elsewhere.
6. In its responses to Miss X the Council confirmed the tree was too close to Miss X’s property to approve her application for a dropped kerb. Its policy was to retain trees unless dead, dying, or dangerous. it had been in touch with its Tree Officer who confirmed the tree was in a reasonable condition and did not warrant removal. The Council had inspected the tree in 2021 and would do so again in 2023. The Council also said it should have given Miss X chance to appeal its decision not to remove the tree. It provided details of the process.
7. The Council has considered Miss X’s application for a dropped kerb. It has explained to Miss X why it refused her application. It has considered extra information from Miss X and has decided its policy has been properly applied. The Council’s decision is in line with its published policy. While I know Miss X is unhappy with the Council’s decision, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s refusal of her application to warrant us investigating.
8. The Council has accepted it should have told Miss X about the process a person can follow if their request for a tree to be removed is refused. It is now open for Miss X to appeal the Council’s decision not to remove the tree. If she was unhappy with the outcome, she could make a fresh complaint to the Council and then the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman