Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application for a dropped kerb or her request for H-bar markings. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb and her request for H-bar markings at the entrance of her driveway. Ms X says vehicles are parking in front of her property which prevents her from accessing her driveway which has been in use for many years. Ms X says she is suffering significant stress because of the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 how the organisation made its decision, 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 Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X says the previous owner of her property was given permission to construct a driveway and dropped kerb in the 1990s. Ms X says the driveway has been used for many years, however she is now having issues with people parking across the entrance preventing access. To try and resolve the problem, Ms X applied to the Council for permission to build a vehicle crossover.
7. The Council refused the application because of a nearby tree. The Council says its policy does not allow vehicle crossovers to be built within the two-metre prohibited zone of a tree due to the potential impact on the tree and highway safety. Ms X appealed to the Council against its decision, but her appeal was also refused.
8. As the Council’s decision to refuse the application was in line with its policy, it is unlikely I would find fault. Ms X says permission was given to the previous owners of her property. However, permission would have been given by the Council previously responsible for highway functions. The Council does not consider there is currently a dropped kerb at the site as the existing kerb is higher than the height of a normal dropped kerb. It therefore also refused Ms X’s request for a H-bar marking. I understand Ms X disagrees, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. The Council has said it will reconsider the request for a H-bar if Ms X can provide evidence from the Council responsible for the highway at the time her driveway was built to show it constructed a dropped Kerb.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman