London Borough of Redbridge (24 002 826)

Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 31 Jul 2024

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Mr X applied to the Council for a dropped kerb to the front of his property.
  2. The Council refused the application, in line with its policy, because it would require the loss of part of a grassed area to the front of Mr X’s property.
  3. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. He said there would be no loss of amenity as the area of grass that would need to be removed to allow his dropped kerb was very small and there were no trees or shrubs there. He said his neighbour’s application had been granted 2-3 years ago and this had required the removal of a much larger area of grass.
  4. The Council considered Mr X‘s appeal but upheld its original decision.
  5. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. Mr X’s application has been considered, and refused, in line with the Council’s dropped kerb policy which says permission for a dropped kerb will not be granted where any amenity feature, such as verges, landscaped, soiled, grassed and planted area would need to be removed or reduced in size. The decision to refuse Mr X’s application is one it is entitled to make.
  6. The presence of a historically agreed and installed dropped kerb on a neighbouring property is not relevant to the Council’s decision on Mr X’s application as it was granted prior to the Council’s current policy. Policies will evolve over time and previously installed dropped kerbs may well not meet the current criteria and would not be agreed if they were requested now. Applicants need to meet the current criteria.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings