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

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. I considered the Council’s current Vehicle Cross Over Application Criteria.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X applied to the Council for a dropped kerb.
9. The Council refused Mr X’s application because his property frontage, at just over 5 metres, does not meet the minimum space criteria of 6 metres. The Council upheld the decision at appeal.
10. The Council’s Cross Over Application Criteria is published on its website. It states the minimum space criteria is at least 6.0 metres long where the parking area is in front of a garage or door. It states if the space criteria is not met then the application will be refused. It also states parallel spaces that do not meet the minimum dimensions set out in the criteria will not be permitted.
11. Mr X argues he would be able to park parallel to the property with the space available. The Council noted this but said once the dropped kerb was granted it would have no control over how people parked at the property and this could lead to an encroachment of a vehicle on to the footway.
12. Mr X says the Council’s criteria is too rigid and each case should be considered on its merits. He says he would only park parallel to the property if the application was granted. Mr X says he applied for a dropped kerb partly because he intends to have an electric vehicle in the future and without a dropped kerb this will not be feasible.
13. The Council’s Application Criteria states it does not make exceptions to the guidance for electric vehicles as much of the current criteria relates to highway safety and maintaining on street parking for all users.
14. Whilst I note Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision to refuse his dropped kerb application there is no sign of fault by the Council here. It has considered and decided the application in line with its current published eligibility criteria. We are not an appeal body and we cannot question the merits of a council’s decision where there is no sign of fault by which it was reached. The Council’s decision to refuse his application on the basis it does not meet the current criteria is one it is entitled to make.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council as it has considered and decided the application in line with its current published criteria which apply to all applications.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman