Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dropped kerb application because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has refused his application for a dropped kerb outside his property, despite other properties in the area with the same frontage measurements previously being able to have dropped kerbs.
2. Mr Y says his mother has a blue badge but is often unable to park in the disabled blue badge bay near their home. The lack of available parking causes worry and inconvenience and Mr Y is unable to charge his electric vehicle, causing further inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered Mr Y information provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y made enquiries to the Council about having a dropped kerb installed at his property. He told the Council this was so he could charge his electric vehicle and to help his disabled mother, who was often unable to park in the blue badge bay outside their home due to other road users occupying the space.
7. The Council told Mr Y it was unlikely, if he did make an application, the Council would agree to a dropped kerb being installed outside his property as his driveway was shorter than 4.75 metres which is the length the Council’s policy required.
8. Mr Y then complained, giving his reasons, as explained in paragraph six, why he was seeking a dropped kerb. He also suggested he could park sideways across the frontage of his property, which would mean the pavement outside would not be obstructed by his vehicle when parked.
9. The Council’s final response said that while Mr Y had a small vehicle now, it could not ensure the pavement stayed unobstructed if he later had a larger vehicle. It also said the issue of disabled parking would be a matter for enforcement of parking in the blue badge bay, rather than a need for a dropped kerb and that while it acknowledged Mr Y’s views around electronic vehicle charging, other options for charging were available in the area. It did not uphold Mr Y’s complaint about the unlikelihood that a dropped kerb application would be granted. Mr Y then approached us.

Analysis

10. In this case, the Council has considered the enquiry against its existing policy. It has explained its rationale for its response, for both the issue of length of driveway and in direct response to Mr Y’s points regarding his mother’s disability, his parking across his frontage and his ability to charge his electronic vehicle. It has therefore considered the enquiry properly before responding.
11. While Mr Y may disagree with the response, as the Council has considered relevant factors in its decision-making process, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint. Consequently we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman