Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his dropped kerb application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his application for a dropped kerb. He says the Council delayed in dealing with his application and his complaint and did not answer his questions. He disputes the Council’s reasons for refusing his application and says it has previously agreed one of them does not apply.

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. If we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
6. While Mr X clearly disagrees with the Council’s decision I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it was reached. I cannot therefore question it.
7. Mr X refers to the Council’s reasons for refusing his previous application in 2019 and says it accepted at the time that one of the reasons did not apply. But it is entitled to reach a different decision now and it has in any event confirmed there is another reason which itself is sufficient to warrant refusal. Mr X questions how the Council reached its decision and has asked for evidence in support of it, but the decision is a matter of professional judgement and is in line with its criteria. We cannot say the reasons are wrong or direct the Council to approve Mr X’s application against its judgement.
8. The Council accepts it delayed in dealing with Mr X’s application and that its initial decision set out only one of the two reasons justifying its refusal. In recognition of this it agreed to refund Mr X’s application fee and pay him £100. This is a sufficient remedy for the injustice caused by these issues and we would not therefore recommend anything more.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman