Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s application and appeal for a dropped kerb. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complained about the Council’s handling of her application and appeal for a dropped kerb. Ms X says the Council has failed to consider her disabilities.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X already has a dropped kerb to the front of her property. Ms X asked the Council for permission to widen the dropped kerb. The Council refused because it would mean removing a mature tree. The Council’s policy is not to remove such trees to install a dropped kerb. But it did offer to widen the existing kerb. Ms X refused and appealed the Council’s decision. She explained she was a Blue Badge holder and needed a wider dropped kerb so her carer could park closer to her front door. Ms X said cars often parked across the existing dropped kerb making access difficult.
7. The evidence I have seen shows a council officer wrote to three councillors at the final stage of the appeals process. The officer explained Ms X was disabled and why she wanted the dropped kerb extending. The Council’s policy says it will give weight to the special needs of a disabled person. This will be weighed against any reason which may result in refusal. The officer also explained the Council’s policy was to not remove mature trees for a dropped kerb. The officer’s recommendation was to refuse the application and the councillors agreed. The Council wrote to Ms X with its decision.
8. We will not start an investigation into Ms X’s complaint. This is because we are not a right of appeal for people who disagree with a council’s decision. We cannot question a decision where the proper process has been followed and the decision has been correctly taken. Based on the evidence I have seen the Council considered the information it was presented with and reached a decision it was entitled to take. I do think the Council’s final letter to Ms X should have explained the decision in more detail. But on balance, there is not enough evidence of fault for us to become involved.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman