Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a dropped kerb. This is because the Council has provided a fair remedy and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, says the Council gave misleading information about applying for a dropped kerb. She also says it did not give clear reasons for refusing the application. Ms X wants the Council to provide a dropped kerb without charge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• The Council has provided a fair remedy, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and a photograph of the driveway provided by the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Ms X applied to extend her dropped kerb. She was aware there is minimum depth rule of 4.8 metres which she knew her drive does not meet. But she had also seen information on the website which said the Council may approve parking in parallel to the highway if there is a minimum of 3 metres from the property to the highway boundary and highway safety is not compromised. Ms X applied because she met the 3 metre requirement.
5. The Council refused the application because the drive does not meet the 4.8 metre rule. Ms X tried to appeal or complain but found the process confusing.
6. As part of the complaint process the Council reconsidered the application but confirmed its decision not to approve the application. This is because, if the kerb was extended, there would be the potential for cars to park head-on and cause safety issues by over-hanging the highway.
7. The Council upheld many aspects of Ms X’s complaint. It agreed the decision reasons for rejecting the application were unclear, as was the process for making a complaint or trying to appeal the decision. The Council said the word “may” in relation to the possibility of parallel parking was not helpful and it agreed to revise the wording to make the requirements clearer. The Council apologised to Ms X, awarded £100, and said it would refund the £89 application fee.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because the Council has already provided a fair response. It upheld many parts of the complaint, apologised, acknowledged what had gone wrong and agreed to make changes to improve its procedures. It also offered compensation and a refund. There is nothing more we would ask the Council to do.
9. I also will not start an investigation because we could not achieve the outcome Ms X wants. We are not an appeal body and have no power to authorise a dropped kerb. It is for the Council to decide whether to approve an application and it has decided that, even under the parallel parking rule, a dropped kerb would not be safe. Ms X may disagree but we have no power to over-ride the decision, especial as it has been made for reasons of road safety.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a fair remedy and we could not achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman