Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, we could not achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains he was misadvised about the application process and rules for a dropped kerb. He wants the Council to waive the fee and change the rules.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and information from the Council’s website. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council’s dropped kerb policy says it will not allow a crossing when the parking space is less than 5.5 metres long. It also says applications will be processed against the current policy and there is a non-refundable £50 fee for unsuccessful applications.
5. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb. He thought his application would be approved because many of his neighbours have dropped kerbs. The Council contacted Mr X and said he would need to get consent from the estate manager. Mr X says the estate office said the depth requirement is 5 metres. In the meantime a surveyor visited and assessed the application.
6. The Council refused the application because the depth of Mr X’s drive is 5 metres. Mr X complained. He referred to his neighbours having dropped kerbs, said he had been misadvised and there was no need for him to have consulted the website. Mr X said the Council made the decision before he had received a decision from the estate office. He also says he was misinformed and the website does not provide information about the depth requirement.
7. The Council explained the rules are stated on the website and he would have needed consent from both housing and the highway teams. It said the fees are listed on the website. The Council explained that each application is assessed against the current rules and the existing dropped kerbs in the road would have been approved under previous policies.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The depth requirement is stated on at least two pages on the Council’s website and, as far as I am aware, Mr X used the website to submit his application. Mr X would have needed consent from both departments and, while an officer from housing might have referred to a 5 metre depth rule, by then Mr X had already submitted his application. In addition, the fee is consistent with the policy.
9. I also will not start an investigation because we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants. We are not an appeal body and could not ask the Council to grant consent when that would be contrary to the policy. In addition, we have no power to change the policy or ask the Council to change it. The Council sets policy, not us. If Mr X thinks the policy should be changed to reduce the depth requirement to 5 metres then that is a matter he would need to raise with the Council, perhaps through his local councillors.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman