Summary: Ms X complained the Council wrongly approved her neighbour’s application for a dropped kerb which does not meet the Council’s vehicle crossing criteria. The Council is at fault for failing to ensure the application complies with policy and failing to investigate this thoroughly when Ms X complained. This has caused Ms X frustration and cost her time and trouble bringing the complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council wrongly approved her neighbour’s application for a dropped kerb. She says it does not meet the Council’s vehicle crossing criteria. Ms X cannot safely park two cars on her double drive or use the public parking space in front of her property because of her neighbours dropped kerb. She must park her car elsewhere, causing frustration. She wants the Council to investigate and put the drive back to how it was before the dropped kerb was installed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The Council’s policies and procedures.
5. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s policies and procedures

6. The Council’s website explains what a vehicle crossing is, the criteria and application process.
7. A vehicle crossing, or dropped kerb, is when a kerb is lowered and the footpath strengthened, to let vehicles move between roads and properties.
8. An application must meet the criteria to be approved. The criteria which is important for this matter is the parking space must have a depth of 5 metres. This is measured from the outer most part of the property (for example a bay window, steps, utility cabinet) to the carriageway. The website says the Council will not allow any vehicle crossing where the depth of the frontage parking space is less than 5 metres. It says applications should not be submitted if they do not meet the criteria and the Council will not refund the application fee in these cases.
9. As part of the application form, an applicant must declare they have a depth of at least 5 metres between their property and the carriageway for parking a car.
10. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the officer considering the application must visit the site and check the application against the criteria with the measurements. It said the criteria for extending an existing dropped kerb is the same as requesting a new one.

What happened

11. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.
12. Ms X has a garage and double driveway with space to park two cars. She has a dropped kerb the full width of her property.
13. Her neighbour (N) has a double driveway in front of their home. Originally it had a single dropped kerb to provide access.
14. Ms X and N’s properties are at right angles to one another, on two edges of a corner of the cul-de-sac.
15. N applied for an extension to their dropped kerb in September 2023. The Council does not have a copy of the application form as this is an online process. The Council has provided a sketch of N’s property which N provided as part of the application process. This says the driveway measures 5 metres from the property boundary to the pavement. The application also included a brief description of the application request and a location photograph of the site which showed the existing dropped kerb.
16. Following receipt of the application, the Councils records show it was awaiting inspection and assessment. The Council approved the application four days later. The case notes refer to the drainage channels in front of the kerbs to remain and a utility inspection cover to be adjusted or replaced. Gullies are to be replaced.
17. N extended their dropped kerb in the middle of December 2023. Ms X says N does not park on their driveway, but instead parks on the road in front of the new dropped kerb. Ms X says this blocks access to her driveway and makes it difficult to navigate a second car onto her double driveway.
18. Ms X complained to the Council in late December 2023. She said N’s driveway is not 5 metres deep and their application should not have been approved as it does not meet the criteria. In its response, the Council said the inspector visited the site in early September and approved the extension which complied with the policy. It had raised Ms X’s concerns with the highways team which said the 'inspector for the site was highly experienced in VX (vehicle crossing) site inspections and had been visiting and measuring sites for several years and the team believe the measurements of the VX site would be accurate.’
19. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman in January 2024.
20. In response to Ombudsman enquiries, the Council said the inspector ‘has taken the measurement based on the sketch provided by the applicant as correct (5m) and has not verified this information with further measurements. Photos of the site and area have been reviewed and considered.’

Analysis

21. The application form asked N to confirm their application meets the requirements. By putting in the application form, N confirmed their driveway is 5 metres deep and complies with the vehicle crossing policy. As part of the application, the inspector must visit the site and check the application against the criteria and take measurements. The notes provided by the Council do not say if the inspector visited the site and measured the driveway. The response from the Council to Ombudsman enquiries say the inspector appears to have taken the measurements provided in the application as correct and not verified this by taking their own measurements. The Council has failed to measure the site and ensure the application complies with criteria in the policy. This is fault.
22. The complaint response to Ms X said the inspector visited the site and the measurements were accurate. In response to Ombudsman enquires, the Council said the inspector does not appear to have taken measurements and relied on the application being correct. The Council’s original complaint investigation was not thorough and its response letter to Ms X was misleading. This is fault.
23. Ms X says the Council’s fault means she cannot fully access her driveway. She says N parks their car in front of their own driveway which blocks Ms X’s access to her driveway. I can understand this must be frustrating for Ms X, but this is not a direct result of the Council’s fault. N parking in a place that makes it difficult for Ms X to manoeuvre onto and off her drive is a separate matter. It is an offence to park across someone else’s dropped kerb. Ms X may consider reporting this to the Council or police, which may decide if action is suitable.

Injustice

24. The Council’s failure to properly consider N’s application has caused Ms X frustration. The Council’s failure to thoroughly investigate and give Ms X an accurate response to her complaint caused extra frustration and cost her time and trouble bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. This is her injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Ms X and pay her £200 for the frustration caused by its failure to properly consider the application and investigate her concerns accurately during the complaint procedure.
• Remind inspectors they should check applications against the criteria in the policy and ensure they check the measurements.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation. The Council is at fault for failing to ensure the application complies with policy and failing to investigate this thoroughly during the complaint process. This has caused Ms X frustration and cost her time and trouble.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman