Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb. Mr X says his application was rejected on incorrect information and his case is exceptional and should be agreed. He says his application would have been granted under the Council’s previous policy and the Council’s current policy is not valid.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start 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))
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb to the rear of his property.
8. The Council refused Mr X’s application because he already has a dropped kerb to the front of his property. This decision was made in line with the Council’s current terms and conditions which state only one vehicular access will be permitted per property. If an applicant already has an existing crossover, applications for additional crossovers will be refused.
9. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. He said his case was exceptional and provided additional information in support of the application.
10. The Council considered the information Mr X provided but upheld its original decision to refuse the application.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Mr X says his application has been refused on the basis of incorrect information. However, I can see from the complaint correspondence that his application has been refused in line with the Council’s current policy and published terms and conditions for granting of a dropped kerb. Mr X’s application does not meet the criteria because he already has a dropped kerb in place. The Council considered the information Mr X provided at appeal in support of his view that his case is exceptional. However, it decided to uphold its original decision to refuse the application in line with its policy. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
12. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider, as here, that it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong even if a complainant disagrees with it.
13. Mr X says the Council has blacklisted him since he said there were other dropped kerbs in place locally which did not meet the current criteria. The Council confirmed it had not blacklisted Mr X, but had explained it would not respond further on the matter as it has completed its full procedure. There is no sign of fault in the Council’s approach here. It needs to prioritise its limited resources and it has explained why it will not respond further. Mr X can continue to contact the Council on any other matters.
14. The Council addressed Mr X’s complaint in relation to incorrect information during the complaint process. It also confirmed the approval of the current terms and conditions, in place since 2020, was made by the Highways Team taking account of national guidance.
15. The presence of other dropped kerbs locally which may not meet the current criteria is not relevant to the Council’s decision on Mr X’s application. Historically agreed and installed dropped kerbs may well not meet the current criteria as policies are updated and evolve over time.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman