Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Ms X’s application for a vehicle crossing (dropped kerb) outside her home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision making process to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X, the complainant, has a disability. She applied to the Council for a dropped kerb outside her property, but it refused her application. She says without it she has no choice but to park on the opposite side of the road and it is difficult for her to cross safely. She feels discriminated against by the Council, wants it to agree to install the dropped kerb, and to provide compensation for distress and discrimination.

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)
4. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
5. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X applied for a dropped kerb to be installed at the front of her property. The Council refused her application and subsequent appeal because it said speed cushions on the road prevent it from constructing the dropped kerb. The Council explained that if it removed the speed cushions to install the dropped kerb, it would also need to move double yellow lines to accommodate buses on the road. This would involve shifting sections of parking further up the road, including the removal of a disabled bay. It explains this process would be costly and unfeasible.
9. We are not an appeal body. This means we cannot challenge the Council’s decision unless there is fault in its decision making processes. I understand Ms X feels the Council’s decision is discriminatory against her disability, and does not feel it has done enough to consider her needs.
10. However, the Council only needs to make adjustments for someone’s disability if it considers it reasonable to do so. In this case, I am satisfied the Council has considered Ms X’s application in line with its policy for dropped kerbs, has given due consideration to her application, and has clearly explained its reasons for rejecting her application. The Council acknowledges the impact this may have on Ms X and has offered to turn a nearby parking space into a disabled bay for her, though it recognises this is not her preferred option. It is therefore unlikely an investigation would find fault. Ms X should seek legal advice if she wants to challenge the Council’s decision on grounds of discrimination.
11. Ms X also wants the Council to explain why it moved speed cushions outside her neighbour’s property to install a dropped kerb, when it will not approve her application. The presence of existing dropped kerbs locally, which may also not meet the current criteria, is not relevant to the Council’s decision on Ms X’s application now, and we could not say that the circumstances of the applications are identical such that the Council should approve Ms X’s application.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we would be unlikely to find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman