Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb. Miss X says the front of her property meets the minimum size requirement and so the application has been incorrectly refused.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the current criteria for granting of a dropped kerb which is published on the Council’s website.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X complained to the Council about its decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb. Miss X says the front of her property measures 3.6 metres and therefore meets the minimum size requirement.
9. Miss X says she needs the dropped kerb due to both her and her sons’ physical disabilities. Miss X and one of her sons are also wheelchair users. The road where she lives has a lot of cars and she is not always able to access her driveway.
10. Miss X says the Council discriminated against her because she was eligible for a discounted dropped kerb application.
11. The Council refused Miss X’s application because it did not meet the minimum size requirement set out in the criteria. It measured the front width of Miss X’s property at 2.3 metres. The measurement is taken from the boundary line to the bottom of the right hand dipper. It said the length of the dipper accounted for the approximately 1 metre difference in the measurements that were done by Miss X’s builder and councillor.
12. The current minimum size requirements for a successful dropped kerb application are published on the Council’s website. This says applications need to meet the minimum width requirement of 2.75 metres at the property boundary and 4.5 metres at kerb edge.
13. Whilst I note Miss X is unhappy with the Council’s decision I can see no sign of fault in how the Council considered and decided her application. It has been decided and refused in line with the current minimum size criteria. As such, there is no sign the Council discriminated against Miss X due to her having a discounted application.
14. We are not an appeal body and we cannot intervene where, as is the case here, there is no sign of fault in the process by which the decision was made.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council in how it considered and decided Miss X’s dropped kerb application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman