Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered an application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had not taken enforcement action after a dropped kerb was constructed without planning permission on a busy road. He said he was concerned about public safety on the road. Mr X wanted Council departments to work together to resolve the matter.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained the Council did not take enforcement action when a dropped kerb was constructed on a busy road near his home.
6. In its complaint response, the Council said it had considered the application for the dropped kerb in line with its criteria for vehicle crossings. The Council approved the application and said it advised the applicant they would need planning permission.
7. The vehicle crossing was constructed without planning permission. The applicant then submitted a retrospective planning permission to the local planning authority. The Council told Mr X it would provide comments during the planning consultation process to review any associated highways implications.
8. Mr X said the applicant did not use a Council approved contractor to construct the vehicle crossing.
9. In its complaint response, the Council said it would carry out a review of recently approved vehicle crossings to confirm if applicants used an approved contractor. It said it would then assess whether it needed to take enforcement action after it had considered construction specifications and maintenance liabilities.
10. The Council also referred to recent road safety improvements on the road in question. It said it did not agree the vehicle crossing raised significant road safety concerns.
11. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council said it considered the vehicle crossing application in line with its criteria before it approved the application, and it advised the applicant that planning permission would be required. It also said it would review recent applications and consider whether to take enforcement action.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman