Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his application for a dropped kerb. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has been inconsistent when applying its policy on dropped kerbs. He says the Council allowed a full-width dropped kerb at a nearby property, but refused his same request and his appeal was unsuccessful. He says the Council has treated him unfairly.

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s original application to widen his dropped kerb was successful. He appealed the Council’s decision because he wished to apply for a full-width dropped kerb like many other nearby properties.
7. In November 2024, the Council refused Mr X’s appeal. It explained, even if Mr X had applied for widening of one further dropped kerb, the Council would have refused the application. It referred Mr X to the relevant part of its Vehicle Crossover guidance and online checklist, which showed this decision was in line with these. For these reasons, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.
8. It is not clear whether permission given to other nearby applicants was given under a different Council policy. Even if the Council reached a different decision in another case when a different policy may have been in force, this does not mean there is fault in Mr X’s case. Equally, if an applicant received their permission due to a council fault, that does not provide a basis for us to recommend the council make the same decision for others. We could not order a council repeat a previous fault which goes against their policy to give someone else another incorrectly permitted dropped kerb.
9. Mr X complains about vehicles blocking his driveway, including while works were carried out on another resident’s dropped kerb. We will not investigate this matter. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating. The Council fully responded to Mr X’s complaint. It explained inconsiderate parking by other public highway users was not a factor that it would consider when deciding on dropped kerb applications. It apologised for any inconvenience caused by dropped kerb works in his area, but explained the legal basis on which it had to carry out the works.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his application for a dropped kerb. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman