Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems with a dropped kerb application. This is because the Council has offered a fair remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says that delays by the Council in assessing his application for a dropped kerb meant the Council used the wrong guidelines and wrongly rejected the application. He wants the Council to grant consent for a crossover.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the Council offers a fair remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered the 2019 policy for dropped kerbs. I looked at images of Mr X’s house on streetview and considered comments he made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Dropped kerb policy – 2019

4. The policy applied to all applications made between 1 January and 31 December 2019. The policy said the Council could refuse applications which would result in the loss of on-street parking in a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) or other parking scheme. The policy also says the Council can refuse an application on the grounds of road safety if it thinks the crossover would result in a potential hazard for drivers or pedestrians.

What happened

5. There are two/three on-street parking bays directly outside Mr X’s house. Images from streetview suggest the bays have been there since 2014.
6. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb in December 2019. The Council visited and assessed the application. The Council decided to reject the application because it would result in the loss of the parking bays and for road safety reasons.
7. The Council wrote two letters to Mr X in February 2020 rejecting the application. Unfortunately the Council’s letters were poor and wrongly referred to the rules for 2020/21. The letters quoted the wrong decision reasons for refusing the application.
8. Mr X complained because it appeared the Council had assessed his application on the wrong rules. In response, in April, the Council explained it had used the 2019 policy to assess the application and he did not qualify for the crossover because of the parking bays for health and safety reasons linked to a pedestrian crossing point a short distance away. It apologised for the errors that had occurred but said it could not agree to remove the parking bays so he could have a dropped kerb.
9. Mr X remained dissatisfied and submitted further complaints. The Council repeated that it had assessed the application under the 2019 rules. It explained that it had been unable to make the decision until February due to a high workload.
10. Mr X remains of the view that the Council delayed assessing his application and then applied the wrong rules. He says the Council would have granted consent if it had made a decision in 2019. He says the Council wrongly refused the application on the basis of a CPZ due to be introduced after 2019. He also says the 2019 policy only prohibits the loss of on-street parking in a CPZ. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s statement that it is illegal for him to park on his driveway without a dropped kerb. He says his deeds state he can park on his drive.

Assessment

11. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons.
12. The 2019 rules say the Council will refuse an application if the building of a crossover would involve the loss of parking bays in a CPZ or other parking scheme. When Mr X applied for a dropped kerb, in 2019, there were two bays outside his home which would be lost if a crossover was built. The Council correctly assessed his application under the 2019 policy; the prohibition of not losing a parking bay is not solely restricted to a CPZ. In addition, aside from the loss of the parking bays, the Council also refused the application due to safety concerns linked to the pedestrian crossing point; this is stated in the 2019 rules. The Council refused the application on two grounds both stated in the 2019 rules. In addition, while Mr X says his deeds allow him to use any access to his land, he still needs consent from the Council to build a crossover.
13. However, the Council did not handle the application well. Its letters were confusing and did not clearly explain that the Council had assessed the application under the 2019 rules. The Council could have done better at explaining why Mr X is not eligible for a dropped kerb. The Council’s weakness in explaining the decision must have been frustrating for Mr X and put him to undue time and trouble. The Council has offered to refund the application fee of £164. This is a fair remedy for the stress he has been caused. Mr X has repeated that he wants, as a remedy, permission for a dropped kerb. I have no power to ask the Council to grant consent for a dropped kerb because Mr X does not meet the qualifying conditions.

Final decision

14. I will not start an investigation because the Council has offered a fair remedy for its poor handling of the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman