Summary: Mr X complains the Council wrongly refused his footway crossing (dropped kerb) application. There was fault by the Council. It has agreed a remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X complains on behalf of his mother Mrs X, that the Council failed to properly consider his request for a dropped kerb. As a result, he says Mrs X, who is disabled, has been unable to leave her home as she cannot access a car.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents it provided. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s footway crossing policy

5. The Council’s policy states at section 7, “Forecourt Dimension Requirements:

To take account of the increase in size of the average car, the vehicle hard standing within the property frontage must have the following dimensions:

Footway crossing installations will only be allowed where the frontage depth is a minimum of 4.75m and width is at least 4.5m wide allowing parking at right angles to the carriageway only.”

6. The policy states at section 11, “Footway crossing widths:

The standard footway crossing width (lowered kerb length) is 2.7m or 3 lowered kerbs. This is the normal width appropriate in most cases. In exceptional circumstances, dependent onsite conditions, a maximum crossing width (lowered kerb length) for an individual property of 4.5m or 5 lowered kerbs may be applied. (See Figure 2 for the overhead layout of a footway crossing).

Where a boundary fence, wall or hedge to the property exists, this should be retained for that portion of the frontage not covered by the footway crossing.”

What happened

7. Mr X applied to the Council on behalf of Mrs X for a dropped kerb in front of their home. He paid a fee for his application.
8. The Council rejected Mr X’s application because it said that there was “insufficient gateway width.”
9. Mr X complained to the Council that it was wrong to refuse his application and that there was sufficient width for a footway crossing.
10. The Council replied that it had reviewed the decision and said an inspector measured a driveway width of 2.9 metres at the back of the footway between Mrs X’s home and the neighbours. It said that it could not install a footway crossing where the property gateway width was less than 4.5 metres.
11. Mr X complained further but the Council repeated what it said in its earlier response and said its decision there was insufficient gateway width was correct.

Analysis

12. The Council gave the reason “insufficient gateway width” in its refusal and its complaint responses. However, there is no requirement for a specific minimum gateway width in the Council’s policy. It appears the Council was referring to the insufficient width of Mrs X’s proposed driveway. The Council did not clarify this in its responses to Mr X’s complaints because it continued to refer to the gateway width. I consider this lack of clarity was fault causing confusion, and additional time and trouble for Mr X in pursuing the complaint.
13. I have considered whether the Council’s fault meant that it should change or review its decision. However, the Council has confirmed that Mrs X’s driveway or frontage is not wide enough because it less than 4.5 metres at the boundary with the footway. The Council states the width must be consistent from the back of the footway to the property. In addition, the width of the footway at the kerb edge is also insufficient.

Back to top

Agreed action

14. Within one month of my decision, I recommended that
• the Council refunds the fee that Mr X paid as a remedy for the confusion caused and his time and trouble.
• The Council should remind officers that they should provide the correct reasons for refusal when sending a decision to an applicant in accordance with the Council’s policy.
15. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Council has agreed to remedy the faults in this case. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman