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, Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision that he does not qualify for a dropped kerb. He says he meets the width and depth requirements. Mr X would like a dropped kerb to charge a car and for family health reasons.

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))
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the application and complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The policy says that where a larger dropped kerb is proposed (more than four dropped kerbs and two tapers) the Council will only grant consent if there would no significant reduction in on-street parking.
6. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb. The Council visited and assessed the application and the site.
7. The Council refused the application because the crossing would need seven kerbs and it counts as a large construction. The Council decided the crossing would have a significant impact on the on-street parking and would involve the loss of two parking spaces. It also noted there are no other crossings in the immediate area and that planning permission was refused in 2018, partly due to the impact on on-street parking. The Council also said there would not be enough space to manoeuvre into the drive and the car may have to reverse out between parked cars.
8. The main reason the Council refused the application is because it would be a wide dropped kerb which, in the opinion of the Council, would have a significant impact on the existing on-street parking. The Council was entitled to reach this view, which is consistent with the policy, so there is no reason to start an investigation.
9. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the reasons given for the refusal and may disagree about the impact on the on-street parking; but that disagreement is not an indication of fault. We are not an appeal body and it is not my role to decide if Mr X qualifies for a dropped kerb or to re-make the decision. I can only intervene if there is fault in the decision making process and I see no indication of fault. We have no power to approve an application or tell the Council it must grant consent.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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