Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it considered Mrs X’s application for a dropped kerb. The Council was at fault for how it handled Mrs X’s complaint, however this did not cause significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse an application for a dropped kerb.
2. Mrs X says the Council did not take the decision properly and this has meant that she cannot install an electric vehicle (EV) charging point at the front of her property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Dropped kerbs (sometimes called vehicle crossovers)

8. If a motorist needs to drive across the pavement into a driveway or parking area, they need a dropped kerb. A dropped kerb or vehicle crossover is an area of lowered pavement and kerbstones. The property owner must get the authority’s permission to install a dropped kerb. They might also need to get planning permission

What happened

9. In late January 2025, Mrs X applied to the Council for vehicle access at the front of her property. Mrs X wanted to install a dropped kerb so a car could park at the front of the property. She also wanted to install an EV charging point.
10. In mid-February 2025, the Council decided not to allow Mrs X’s application for a dropped kerb. The Council told Mrs X the road her property was on was not suitable for a vehicle crossing due to its location and traffic. The Council said Mrs X had vehicle access at the rear of her property.
11. In email exchanges with the Council over the next few days, Mrs X said it was possible to install a vehicle crossing at the front of her property with the correct saftey measures in place. Mrs X also said having vehicle access at the front of the property would improve traffic flow, access for vehicles and support EV adoption.
12. The Council responded to Mrs X and said the road the property was on was a higher category local distributor road which formed part of interconnected local road access for the northern part of the town. The Council said it had a duty to maintain a safe highways network and had to balance the needs of residents being able to park with the safe through movement of traffic. The Council also said Mrs X’s property had parking at the rear and it considered an EV charged could be installed there.
13. On 15 February 2025, Mrs X complained to the Council and asked it to reconsider its decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb. Mrs X said:
• Other similar streets in the town had been granted dropped kerbs.
• There was a clear need for access to EV chargers.
• Governments broader EV strategy supports the development of EV infrastructure to meet the needs of residents especially where there is limited access to off-street parking.
• The Government’s focus on EV roll-out, such as the Local Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (LEVI) funding, demonstrates the commitment to improving access to charging points, particularly for those without off-street parking.
• The Council’s concerns about cross pavement charging and traffic issues could be mitigated with appropriate measures. Mrs X said several councils had already implemented solutions for safe on-street charging.
14. Email correspondence between Mrs X and the Council between 20 February 2025 and early March 2025, showed the Council reconsidered its decision not to approve the dropped kerb. Mrs X told the Council:
• The front of her property was suitable for a parking space with an EV charging point.
• She is unable to install an EV charger at the back of her property.
• There is not parking at the back of the property only an access point.
15. The Council decided it would not allow Mrs X’s application for a dropped kerb. The Council said:
• The property did not meet the size requirements for a parking space and the Council did not believe a parking space of sufficient depth could be installed without a vehicle overhanging onto the public highway.
• It was not in the wider public interest to grant a vehicle crossing.
• The property has in curtilage parking at the rear and for some properties it will not be possible to install home EV charging points.
16. Internal emails between Council officers in early March 2025, showed an officer had been to the property to measure the front space. The measurements taken were slightly smaller than the parking space measurements in the Council’s design guidance.
17. On 2 April 2025, the Council provided a response to Mrs X’s complaint. The Council said it would not permit a driveway crossing and the front of the property was designed so that front access was not necessary. The Council said the property had a parking bay to the rear of the property next to a garage.
18. In late April 2025, Mrs X asked the Council to consider her complaint at the next stage of its process. Mrs X said the Council delayed responding to the complaint at stage one and had not properly addressed her concerns. Mrs X said no one had visited her property to see if the front was big enough to install a parking space.
19. In mid-June 2025, the Council provided its final response to Mrs X’s complaint. The Council said it had considered her request for a dropped kerb fully and in line with professional opinion.
20. Mrs X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Application for a dropped kerb

21. The Council has in its correspondence to Mrs X explained its reasons for not granting the application. This included the property being on a local distributor road which the Council considered could impede the through flow of traffic. The Council also considered Mrs X’s property had in curtilage parking at the back of the property next to the garage and that it may be possible to install an EV charging point here.
22. Additionally, the Council considered the available space for a parking space at the front of the property. Internal Council emails showed it visited the site and measured the space. The available space for a parking space was less than the guidelines in its design guide. The Council considered whether it was appropriate to reduce the length of the space needed to 5 meters (less than its design guidance) as in some cases it could do this, but as Mrs X’s property already had a parking space it decided against this.
23. On balance I am satisfied the Council has properly considered whether to allow Mrs X’s application for a dropped kerb and provided its reasons. I recognise Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision however I do not consider there was fault in the way it made its decision.

Complaint handling

24. The Council was at fault for how it handled Mrs X’s complaint. Ms X complained on 15 February 2025. The Council’s complaints policy says it should provide a response at stage one within 15 working days of receiving the complaint. The Council did not do this.
25. At stage two the Council should provide a response within 25 working days of receiving a stage two request. The Council took longer than 25 days to provide Mrs X with its stage two response. This was fault.
26. While this was fault I do not consider the delays caused Mrs X significant injustice. This was because after the Council received Mrs X’s stage one response it reconsidered its decision on the dropped kerb application and was in communication with her about the application. At stage two the delays were only minor. The Council has apologised in its complaint response for the delays. I am satisfied this remedies any injustice caused.

Back to top

Decision

I find fault not causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman