Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his dropped kerb application because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting its decision. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s complaints handling because it did not cause Mr X significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of his application for a vehicle crossover (dropped kerb). He says the Council initially refused his application on flimsy and unsubstantiated grounds and then changed the reason for refusal following his appeal and complaints. He says the Council also changed its policy while it was dealing with his application, removing a provision he says he expected to be able to rely on to help with his application. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint, stating that it failed to address his concerns and referred him, incorrectly, to the Housing Ombudsman.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision.
6. The Council initially refused Mr X’s application because the “Proposal is within a designated area of parking for the flats and does not meet the criteria for a crossover, as this would remove available on street parking.” The decision also stated “Please be aware your application has been refused on safety grounds using current advice and regulations…”
7. Mr X challenged the Council’s decision because he felt it was wrong and did not exactly match the wording of the policy. But the Council explained that because of the location of the dropped kerb it would result in the loss of on-street parking and was not therefore acceptable.
8. Mr X continued to disagree and requested a site visit. The Council agreed an officer would contact him to arrange a visit but Mr X says this did not go ahead.
9. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council confirmed there were two reasons for refusing his application:
1. The proposed dropped kerb was within a layby/parking area.
2. Mr X’s property faces a grass amenity area.
10. On Point 2, the Council stated from its policy that “officers will require a consultation to be carried out to engage with the local Residents… If there are objections… or it is considered that the crossing would not be suitable on safety grounds, then it is likely that the dropped crossing application will be refused.”
11. As part of his complaint Mr X asked the Council to carry out consultation with his neighbours as he felt sure they would support his application. But the Council explained this was no longer available and that the Council had updated its policy to remove the option of consultation in such cases. Mr X considers this is unacceptable and dishonest.
12. But I have not seen enough evidence of fault by the Council to question its decision on Mr X’s application. The Council’s initial refusal referenced the impact of a dropped kerb on parking and this was confirmed as one of two reasons for refusing the application during the complaints process. So even if the Council had decided to disapply the second issue (which was not given as the original reason for refusal), its concerns about the impact on parking was still sufficient to refuse the application. Further, we could not say what the outcome of any consultation may have been and the policy quoted does not state consultation is a referendum. It is therefore entirely possible that even if Mr X’s neighbours had supported his application the Council would still have refused it.
13. While I appreciate Mr X is frustrated the Council failed to carry out a site visit as agreed I could not say this wrongly affected the outcome of his application (which had already been refused) or caused Mr X significant injustice.
14. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. I appreciate Mr X wasted some time in complaining to the Housing Ombudsman but the Council’s previous two complaint responses correctly directed him to us. Overall I do not consider this point caused such significant injustice that it warrants investigation as a standalone issue or that a remedy would be appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice warranting further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman