Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered an application for a dropped kerb. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council incorrectly denied his application for a dropped kerb. He said not having the dropped kerb would negatively impact his financial interest at the property. He would like the Council to grant permission for a dropped kerb.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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. The Council refused Mr X’s application for a dropped kerb in February 2026. Mr X complained about the decision, and told the Council it had not considered the correct part of the address within the application.
7. In its complaint response, the Council told Mr X it had rejected his application because he did not have full ownership of the land affected by the proposed crossing. The Council’s policy states applicants must provide written consent from the property owner, and demonstrate control of the land from the property to the public highway. Mr X did not meet these requirements and therefore, the Council refused the application.
8. 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.
9. While I recognise Mr X’s concerns about his interest in the site, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to warrant our involvement. The Council acted in line with its policy and set out its reasons for refusing the application. Therefore, we will not investigate.
10. Mr X said the Council had previously granted permission for a dropped kerb under similar circumstances. The Council told Mr X that an earlier permit should not have been granted, and apologised for the confusion and frustration caused. It clarified previous approvals do not set a precedent and each application is considered on its own merits.
11. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. The Council apologised for confusion and frustration caused, and clarified that previous decisions would not set a precedent.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman