Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s decision to reject her application for a dropped kerb. She says the reasons are contradictory and dishonest. Ms X wants a dropped kerb like her neighbours.

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 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the correspondence about the application and the dropped kerb policy. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council’s policy says that older dropped kerbs do not set a precedent and the Council does not take into account existing dropped kerbs. The policy also says the Council will refuse an application if there is a marked layby or bay at the proposed access point between the property and the road.
5. Ms X applied for a dropped kerb. The Council did a site inspection. The Council rejected the application because there is a marked bay outside Ms X’s home at the proposed point of access.
6. Ms X appealed and complained. The focus of her submission was that there are other properties in the area which have a dropped kerb where there is a bay. Ms X also said she finds it painful to walk. In response the Council confirmed its decision is correct. It explained that existing dropped kerbs are not taken into account. It explained why some of the properties identified by Ms X have dropped kerbs; generally, it is because the applications were considered in the past and under previous policies. The Council invited Ms X to apply for a disabled parking bay if she has a Blue Badge.
7. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The policy says the Council will reject an application if there is a bay at the access point. Ms X has a bay directly outside her home; the Council’s decision is in accordance with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. In addition, the policy states the Council does not take existing dropped kerbs into account.
8. I appreciate Ms X disagrees with the decision and feels aggrieved because some of her neighbours have dropped kerbs. However, we are not an appeal body. We can only intervene if there is fault in the way a council makes a decision and, in this case, there is no suggestion of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman