Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his request to extend a dropped kerb. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council has wrongly refused his request to extend the dropped kerb for his property by 1.5 metres. Mr B says the extension is needed because on-street parking can make it difficult to access his property without driving over the kerb.

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 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr B. I have considered information on the Council’s website about the Council’s requirements for dropped kerb applications. I have also viewed Mr B’s property on Google Streetview.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into Mr B’s complaint. The Council refused Mr B’s application because his property already has a dropped kerb with the maximum width the Council allows for a single property. This decision is in line with the Council’s criteria for dropped kerbs and I have not seen any information to indicate the Council’s decision was affected by fault. Also, it is not our role to tell the Council that its policy is wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman