Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the refusal to refund an application fee for a dropped kerb. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr C complains the Council should have told him that it would refuse his application for a dropped kerb before taking the £317.20 fee. He wants the fee refunded.

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 Mr C and the Council
• information available on the Council’s website ; and
• I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. I will not start an investigation because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. The rules say applicants must have a minimum depth of 4.8 metres from the back of the pavement to their building line.
5. Mr C knew his property does not have the required 4.8 metre depth before he applied. He says most of his neighbours have the same problem but park at an angle and he asked the Council if this would be acceptable.
6. The administrative officer who processes applications told Mr C the Council could not tell him whether it would approve his application if he did not pay the fee.
7. The Council carried out a site visit and confirmed Mr C’s frontage is almost a metre shorter than the minimum 4.8 metres.
8. I cannot comment on applications for other properties on Mr C’s street because the Council should assess each application against the rules in place at the time.
9. However, there is no fault in the way the Council assessed Mr C’s application. We do not act as an appeal body, and we cannot intervene simply because someone disagrees with a decision a council has made. Mr C was aware of the required minimum depth and yet chose to apply knowing his property does not meet the Council’s criteria for dropped kerbs.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman