Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, disagrees with the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb. Ms X says the new rules should not apply to older houses and that most of the houses in her road have a dropped kerb.

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 we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (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 dropped kerb policy and invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Dropped kerb policy

4. The rules say the parking area must have a minimum depth of 4.8m. This is to ensure that no part of the vehicle overhangs the pavement. The policy explains that the depth requirement has changed over the years which may mean dropped kerbs will have been approved in the past which would not be approved now. The policy states the applicant must meet the current rules and existing dropped kerbs, with a shorter drive, will not be taken into account.

What happened

5. Ms X applied for a dropped kerb. The Council refused the application because her front garden has a depth of 4.52m.
6. In response to her complaint the Council explained that it has a minimum depth requirement to ensure vehicles do not overhang the pavement. It also explained that it assesses applications under the current rules and the presence of dropped kerbs which have been approved under old rules cannot be taken into account. The Council said it had correctly refused her application because her parking area does not have a depth of 4.8m.
7. Ms X disagrees with the decision. She does not think the new rules should apply to older houses. She finds it hard to find a parking space and needs a crossover to make it possible to buy an electric car.

What happened

8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The rules say the applicant must have a driveway with a minimum depth of 4.8m. Ms X’s drive is 4.52m. In addition, the rules say the Council will only assess an application under the rules in force at the time of the application and that the presence of other dropped kerbs will not be taken into account. The Council’s decision is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.
9. I appreciate Ms X would like a dropped kerb. But, we do not act as an appeal body and we could not ask a council to act in a way which would be contrary to the policy.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman