Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’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 Y complains the Council refused his dropped kerb application. He says the Council applied its policy rigidly and failed to exercise discretion. More specifically, Mr Y complains the Council:
1. refused to consider his evidence that he is a long-term authorised user of an electric vehicle at his home;
2. failed to consider its duties towards his disabled child under the Equality Act 2010 given his child lives at the property;
3. made a decision that appears automatic rather than reasoned; and,
4. delayed responding to his appeal.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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’s 2026-2027 Front Garden Parking Criteria (as published online).
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In May 2025, Mr Y sent a dropped kerb application to the Council. He told the Council he used an electric vehicle so needed off-street parking for charging this.
7. In July, the Council refused Mr Y’s dropped kerb application. It said the proposed crossover would lead to the removal of a parking bay in a Controlled Parking Zone. It said an exception did not apply in Mr Y’s circumstances. Mr Y appealed the Council’s decision. He provided evidence of a rent-to-buy agreement with a third party for the electric vehicle.
8. In September, the Council refused Mr Y’s appeal. It explained:

• under its Front Garden Parking Criteria, an exception for electric vehicles only applied where the applicant owned the vehicle and could provide evidence they were the registered keeper of the vehicle. As Mr Y had not provided this evidence, an exception could not be made in his circumstances;
• it had considered the information provided about Mr Y’s child who is Disabled. But it could not consider any exceptional circumstances because, at the time of the appeal, Mr Y had not applied for a Blue Badge for his child. The Council explained, if Mr Y successfully applied for a Blue Badge, the Council could then consider whether exceptional circumstances applied to his application; and,
• the Council was unable to approve Mr Y’s application unless he could provide evidence he was the registered keeper of the electric vehicle or a valid Blue Badge registered to his address and show that he met the other criteria in its policy.

9. The Ombudsman is 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, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. In making its decision not to approve Mr Y’s application, the Council took account of its Front Garden Parking Criteria and the evidence provided by Mr Y. Its decision to refuse Mr Y’s application was in line with its policy. It provided Mr Y with clear reasons for its decision with reference to its policy. For these reasons, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify an investigation.
11. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as only the courts can do this. But we can make decisions about whether an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. The Front Garden Parking Criteria sets out how the Council has considered the impact on Disabled people. It will consider an applicant’s needs and exceptional circumstances when the applicant holds a valid Blue Badge. If the Council rejects the application, there is an appeal process open to applicants. The Council has explained how its policy applies to Mr Y and his child’s current circumstances given he is yet to apply for a Blue Badge. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council has had due regards to its duties under the Equality Act. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. So, we will not investigate.
12. As the Council’s appeal decision did not change the outcome, I consider any delay in it completing this did not cause Mr Y significant injustice. So, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Y’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