Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a dropped kerb application that did not comply with its policy and about an officer visit. We found the Council was at fault in departing from its policy. The Council’s offer to reinstate part of the dropped kerb, and the apologies it had provided about the officer visit, suitably addressed the frustration and distress caused to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X said the Council approved a dropped kerb that did not comply with its policy. Mrs X said the dropped kerb affected deliveries, safe access to and parking at her home. Mrs X also said what happened badly affected her relationship with the nearby owner of the property that applied for the dropped kerb and led to stress and anxiety.
2. Mrs X wanted the Council to engage with the nearby property owner and remove the dropped kerb. Mrs X also wanted the Council to enforce its existing policy in the future and review both its complaint handling and how it dealt with disability issues.
3. Mrs X also complained about the behaviour of the Council officer that visited her home in response to her complaint about the dropped kerb.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have:

• considered Mrs X’s written complaint and supporting papers and photographs;
• talked to Mrs X about the complaint;
• considered the complaint correspondence between Mrs X and the Council;
• considered information about dropped kerbs available on the Council’s website;
• viewed Internet images of the site; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Mrs X and the Council and considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

Dropped kerbs

7. Councils have powers to provide vehicle crossovers, also called a ‘dropped kerb’. A dropped kerb is lowered and strengthened pavement outside a property that allows people to access their driveway for off road parking.
8. The Council’s website includes information on dropped kerbs, which it calls ‘vehicle access crossings’. The website gives links to the Council’s vehicle access crossing policy (‘the Policy’) and customer guidance. The Policy sets out the criteria used to assess crossing applications. And, if an application does not comply with the criteria, the Policy says it will be refused. The criteria include:

• the width of a single crossing to be 4.6 metres (minimum) and 5.5 metres (maximum);
• permission for a double crossing of maximum width 7.3 metres where it is not detrimental to on road parking capacity; and
• no permission for full frontage crossings ‘to prevent the loss of on road parking space to ensure the right balance between on and off-road car parking’.

9. The Policy also says, normally, there should be a minimum 2.4 metre distance between the dropped kerbs of neighbouring properties. But if there is a limited frontage width, the Council will visit the site and may allow the new dropped kerb to adjoin the neighbour’s existing dropped kerb.

The Council’s complaints procedure

10. The Council has a three stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 the Council seeks to resolve matters within the relevant service department and respond within 15 working days. But, if the Council needs more time, it will explain why and give a target date to the complainant. If they find the response unsatisfactory, the complainant has 10 working days to take their complaint to stage 2. The same stage 1 response time, and ability to extend that time apply at stage 2. A Council senior manager considers and responds to stage 2 complaints. After stage 2, a complainant has 10 working days to ask for a stage 3 review. The Council’s Senior Complaints Officer then decides whether to refer the complaint to the Council’s Appeal and Complaints Committee.

What happened

11. Mrs X lives around the end of a cul de sac where peoples’ homes have garages and off-road parking on driveways accessed from dropped kerbs. There are no restrictions along the cul de sac, for example double yellow lines, to prevent on road parking.
12. The Council received an application for a vehicle access crossing from a resident (‘the Resident’) of the cul de sac to extend their existing dropped kerb. The Resident’s home was one of several built around the turning head at the end of the cul de sac. The Council, after visiting the site, approved the Resident’s application. Construction of the extension resulted in a dropped kerb across the full frontage of the Resident’s property.
13. A few months after construction of the extended dropped kerb, a parking incident took place involving Mrs X and the Resident. The contact that followed between Mrs X and the Council, led Mrs X to complain. Mrs X said the extended dropped kerb did not comply with the Policy as it:

• covered the full width of the Resident’s property;
• exceeded the maximum 7.3 metres width;
• was within 2.4 metres of a neighbour’s existing dropped kerb; and
• reduced access to on road parking for disabled road users.

Mrs X said the extended dropped kerb affected both visiting disabled family members and deliveries as it removed on road parking near her home. Mrs X said she would welcome a discussion about how to resolve matters.

14. About two weeks after Mrs X complained, a Council officer visited her home. Mrs X and the Council differ on what happened during the visit. After the visit, Mrs X complained about the officer’s unprofessional conduct. Mrs X’s concerns included how and where the officer communicated with her, use of a misogynistic word, and how the visit ended.
15. In its first response the Council denied the dropped kerb breached the Policy. It described the extension as a double crossing and in line with the Policy as it had no detrimental impact for on road parking. The Council recognised the extended dropped kerb joined an existing neighbouring dropped kerb. The Council said it had joined the two dropped kerbs as it made engineering sense. If it had not joined the two dropped kerbs, the kerbing left would not accommodate a car park space.
16. The Council also apologised that Mrs X found its officer’s conduct unacceptable and for any distress caused by the end of the visit. The Council explained that its policy was for officers to end discussions that might become heightened or could not be immediately resolved.
17. Mrs X took her complaints to stage 2 saying the Council’s responses were inadequate, including the failure to address specific concerns about its officer’s conduct. Other points raised by Mrs X included that joining the extended dropped kerb to the neighbour’s dropped kerb meant the Resident had a full frontage crossing. The Policy did not allow full width crossings on engineering grounds. Mrs X also said the extended dropped kerb was within 2.4 metres of a neighbouring crossing, which was against the Policy. Mrs X said the Council had not apologised for failing to meet its time target for responding to complaints.
18. In its stage 2 complaint response, the Council said the extended dropped kerb removed on road parking in a turning circle. This had a positive impact on road safety by improving access for turning manoeuvres, particularly by larger vehicles. It also complied with the Policy being within the 7.3 metre maximum width. It accepted the Policy did not allow a full width crossing, including on engineering grounds. But, given the layout of the cul de sac, it was logical on engineering grounds to drop the kerb across the full frontage and join it to a neighbour’s existing crossing. The Council said the layout of the turning head meant it was not possible to achieve the Policy 2.4 metre separation distance. It would have considered this, in line with the Policy, at the site visit before approving the extended dropped kerb. The Council said it would review the Policy now the design and layout of the cul de sac had highlighted a ‘grey issue’. The Council also signposted Mrs X to information about advisory disabled parking bays.
19. The Council’s stage 2 response to the officer complaint recognised the visit had broken down and not been helpful. The response gave an express reply to seven points raised by Mrs X and included apologies for any poor communication and any undue stress caused by the visit. The Council also apologised for the officer’s behaviour not meeting expectations. The Council said it did not encourage the use of the language Mrs X had reported and the officer apologised for the offence it had caused Mrs X. The Council also said it had reminded its officers of the need to be respectful and professional when meeting residents, and of conduct standards on site visits. The Council offered to meet Mrs X again at a mutually convenient time and with a different officer/s.
20. Mrs X submitted stage three complaints. Mrs X’s points about the dropped kerb complaint included that extending the crossing did not improve road safety but brought cars into conflict. And the extended dropped kerb exceeded the maximum 7.3 metres width. Mrs X also said, in overriding the Policy where it saw fit, the Council made a mockery of the Policy.
21. In response the Council upheld the crossing complaint as it had based its approval on its officers’ technical professional view and not the Policy. However, the Council continued to justify the non-compliance on engineering grounds given on site conditions. The Council said reinstating part of the kerb would provide technical compliance with the Policy and offered to do so if Mrs X agreed.
22. On the officer complaint, Mrs X said the Council’s stage 2 response still failed to adequately address her concerns. Mrs X also said the Council’s investigation had been unfair as it had not interviewed the family member present during the officer’s visit.
23. The Council spoke to the family member present during the officer visit. Then in responding to the complaint, the Council said its investigating officers decided how to investigate a complaint. The Council confirmed it did not condone any inappropriate language and it had reminded the officer of the standards expected when engaging with residents. The Council said Mrs X’s and the officer’s recollection of events differed and it could not substantiate either party’s view as there was no independent evidence of what happened. The Council apologised for its earlier delayed complaint response.
24. The Council found both complaints had been reasonably and appropriately investigated and responses sent that addressed Mrs X’s concerns. The Council decided not to put Mrs X’s complaints before its Appeal and Complaints Committee and signposted her to the Ombudsman.

Consideration

Introduction

25. My role is to consider whether there is evidence the Council acted with fault and, if so, whether that fault caused Mrs X significant injustice. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our limited resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision on whether a council has acted with fault. This means we do not try to answer every question or address each detailed point raised by a complainant about what a council said and did. So, we cannot always respond to complaints in the detail people might want. Here, while I carefully considered all the information provided by Mrs X, this statement does not, and it did not need to, address every issue and concern raised in the complaint.

The vehicle access crossing

26. At the centre of the complaint was the Council’s decision to approve the Resident’s application to extend an existing dropped kerb. There was no dispute the extension did not comply with the Policy. The evidence showed the non-compliance concerned the width of the extended dropped kerb, which exceeded 7.3 metres. So, I found fault here. However, the Council offered to reinstate about a metre of kerbing, so the extended dropped kerb would be 7.3 metres wide and comply with the Policy. I found the Council’s offer, which was subject to Mrs X’s agreement, suitably put right the fault.
27. In reaching my view, I took account of what Mrs X said about the extended dropped kerb adversely affecting on road parking and road safety. The Council had responded to what Mrs X said about on road parking, including for disabled road users, and road safety. It held different views to Mrs X and found the extension had no detrimental impact for on road parking or road safety. These matters concerned the merits of the Council’s decision making. I had no role in arbitrating on differing views or, here, grounds to question the Council’s findings on these matters however strongly Mrs X might disagree with them.
28. I also considered Mrs X’s concern about the Council’s proposal to review the Policy. However, it is unlikely any policy can foresee, and so provide for, every possible eventuality. And a council may act with fault in slavishly applying a policy where circumstances demonstrate clear grounds for departing from it.
29. Here, the Council justified departure from the Policy on engineering grounds. Having considered images of the site both before and after construction of the extended dropped kerb, the Council’s position had merit. The layout of the turning head showed an existing neighbouring dropped kerb was, in part, alongside the Resident’s frontage. (The Policy says, where possible and to limit the impact on neighbouring properties, a dropped kerb should be wholly within an applicant’s frontage.) Extending the Resident’s dropped kerb to the Policy 7.3 metre maximum width, left about a metre of kerbing between the extension and the neighbouring dropped kerb. This metre of kerbing was within the Resident’s frontage and, as the Council said, would not provide enough space for on road parking.
30. However, the evidence did not show the Council recorded its reasoning for departing from the Policy, which good administrative practice required. And, while joining the two dropped kerbs could be justified on engineering grounds the Policy did not provide for this. Also, in the circumstances here, it appeared logical rather than necessary to depart from the Policy. But, faced with the road and access layout in this case, I did not criticise the Council for deciding to review the Policy. And the terms of the Policy were a matter for the Council to decide and not the Ombudsman.

The officer visit

31. Mrs X did not find the Council’s investigation of her complaint about its officer’s visit adequate in addressing her concerns. The Council had accepted the visit did not go well and offered its apologies. It had spoken to the officer involved, which officer had also offered their apologies. The Council had reminded personnel, including the officer, of the behaviour and standards it expected of its staff when engaging with residents. I found the Council’s responses proportionate, appropriate and reasonable. So, while I recognised Mrs X’s continuing dissatisfaction, I found no good grounds to further investigate this complaint.

Complaint handling

32. Mrs X found the Council’s complaint handling unacceptable. Mrs X said the failure to comply with the Policy was obvious and the Council should have quickly accepted this. If it had, Mrs X said she would have avoided the added distress of having to negotiate all three stages of its complaints procedure. Mrs X also found the Council’s investigation into her complaint about the officer was not sufficiently rigorous or thorough.
33. I recognised Mrs X’s likely frustration at needing to use the three stage Council complaint procedure. However, I found no fault in the Council’s substantive investigation into Mrs X’s complaint about the officer’s visit (see paragraph 31). I also found the Council provided a satisfactory outcome for Mrs X’s dropped kerb complaint in offering to reinstate part of the dropped kerb (see paragraph 26). If the Council had made its offer sooner, I saw no evidence that Mrs X would have found it an acceptable outcome for her complaint. A complaint from Mrs X to the Ombudsman was not therefore likely avoidable.
34. Mrs X also pointed to the Council’s delayed complaint responses. The Council’s first response took longer than the published 15 working days target. The added time likely arose because the Council linked Mrs X’s complaint about the officer visit to the original complaint. The Council ought to have contacted Mrs X to explain it needed more time and or apologised for the delay when sending the response. However, while late, there was no substantive delay as the stage 1 response came 20 working days after Mrs X said she submitted her dropped kerb complaint. The Council responded within 15 working days of Mrs X submitting her stage 2 dropped kerb complaint. And its stage 2 response to the officer visit complaint included an apology for its (nine working days) delay. The complaints procedure does not give a time target for stage 3 complaints. However, the Council responded to the stage 3 complaints within 20 working days. Overall, I did not find the time taken by the Council to respond to the complaints caused Mrs X significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I completed my investigation finding the Council’s offer to reinstate about a metre of kerbing suitably addressed its failure to apply the Policy and any substantive injustice this caused Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman