Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly refused his application for a dropped kerb. He says other properties nearby have dropped kerbs and claims the Council has breached the Equality Act 2010 by failing to take account of the fact the other owner of the property is registered disabled.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council’s current dropped kerb (crossover) policy states “If there are any traffic calming features, such as… speed humps, tables, or cushions etc., that a vehicle could not entirely clear before maneuvering (sic) onto the proposed vehicle crossover… the application will be refused.” The policy also shows a diagram which states a minimum of 2m is required between the edge of the proposed crossover where it meets the public highway and any speed cushion.
5. Mr X bought his property less than five years ago and there was no vehicle crossover in place at the time. He applied recently for a crossover but the Council refused his application due to the proximity of a speed cushion in the road directly outside his property.
6. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision and says there are other properties affected by the speed cushion which have crossovers. But the Council’s decision follows its policy and is not fault. There is no suggestion the other crossovers were approved under the current policy or while the speed cushions were in place. And Mr X was not entitled to assume his application would be approved just because there were other crossovers in the area. The Council’s policy is available via its website and clearly sets out the criteria for a crossover.
7. Mr X claims the Council’s decision breaches the Equality Act as it fails to take into account that the other owner of his property is registered disabled. But we cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts.
8. The Council has considered whether to exercise its discretion to disapply its policy but decided there are no sufficient grounds to do so; we could not therefore say it has fettered its discretion on the point.
9. It is also relevant that vehicle crossovers are not for the sole use of any one individual. In the event the Council agreed to install a crossover this would remain in place and would be usable by Mr X or any new owner of the property and their visitors. There is space for parking on the road outside the property and on both sides of the property only a short distance away.
10. Mr X says the Council has now sprayed markings for bollards outside his property and claims this is another breach of the Equality Act. But as with the Council’s decision to refuse his application we cannot say the Council has breached the Act.
11. It is likely any intention to install bollards stems from the fact vehicles have been driving over the kerb to access the hardstanding to the front of the property and this could potentially cause damage to the pavement and any utilities which run beneath it. It is not for us to say the Council is wrong to take measures to stop vehicles from doing this.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. If Mr X believes the Council has breached the Equality Act he may wish to take the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman