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 Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision to reject his application for 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 response. I considered the dropped kerb policy. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Dropped kerb policy

4. The policy says that the immediate area of the proposed crossing must be free of any pedestrian crossings, disabled bays, resident parking zones or pay and display bays.

What happened

5. Mr X lives within a controlled parking zone (CPZ). There are parking bays outside his home for permit holders.
6. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb. The Council refused the application because the proposed site is withing a residents parking zone.
7. Mr X complained. In response to his complaint that Council said that the application form stated that an application in an area with parking restrictions was likely to be refused. It also said that his CPZ was already over-subscribed and that approving his dropped kerb request would be detrimental to other people.
8. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. He says the Council has issued 278 permits for 215 parking bays. He says that removing one parking bay would not have a detrimental impact but would, instead, be beneficial because he could park on his drive and free-up a bay. He also says that other properties in his road have a dropped kerb.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X lives in a CPZ and the construction of a crossover would involve the loss of a parking bay. The rules say the Council will refuse an application which would result in the loss of a parking bay. I appreciate Mr X says the loss of a bay would not cause a detriment because the CPZ is over-subscribed; however the rules do not say that the restriction does not apply in over-subscribed areas. In addition, the CPZ may not be over-subscribed forever and building a crossover would cause the loss of a parking space which was available for any permit holder to use. The Council also has to apply the rules consistently to every applicant so cannot exercise discretion, as Mr X wants, and relax the rules contrary to the policy.
10. Mr X says other properties in the road have a dropped kerb. But, the Council assesses each application in accordance with the policy in force at that time. The presence of other crossovers does not mean Mr X is eligible for one.
11. The Council’s decision to refuse the application is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. We do not act as an appeal body and we cannot intervene because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.
12. Mr X also says the same Council officer considered his appeal which he says is contrary to the policy. The initial decision was made by the team and a different officer replied to the appeal. Even though Mr X thinks there should have been a further appeal I will not start an investigation because the Council’s decision to reject the application flows from the policy; an investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

13. 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