Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s request for a dropped kerb. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused to grant him permission for a dropped kerb at his home which is in a controlled parking zone. Mr X says neighbouring properties have dropped kerbs and says he has health issues which mean he needs to park close to his home.

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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s application for a dropped kerb was refused by the Council. It referred to the Council's “Vehicle Crossover – Guidance notes for Householders – June 2025”, and stated that “the application will be refused, due to this designated parking zone.” It offered to refund Mr X’s application fee.
7. Mr X complained that parking bays outside neighbours’ houses had been adapted to allow dropped kerbs. He asked the Council to consider his need to park close to his home because he had health issues.
8. The Council reviewed its decision. It explained that neighbouring properties had yellow lines rather than parking bays or had dropped kerbs before parking bays were installed. It said it understood Mr X’s challenges, particularly around his health but the application had been assessed and reviewed in line with the established criteria and procedures.
9. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s request for a dropped kerb. The eligibility criteria are published on the Council’s website. I am satisfied it has properly followed its criteria and considered Mr X’s circumstances when deciding his dropped kerb application.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman