Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to grant consent 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 to reject his application for a dropped kerb. He needs a dropped kerb for medical reasons and says there was no need to change the policy in 2022.

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 Mr X. This includes the dropped kerb decision and the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council changed the dropped kerb policy in 2022 and all new applications are assessed against that policy. The policy says that no part of a crossing can be within two metres of the base of a tree. The policy also says the Council will not remove healthy trees.
5. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb. The Council inspected the site and rejected the application because the proposed crossing would be within two metres of a healthy tree.
6. Mr X appealed and explained why he needs a dropped kerb. The Council confirmed the decision is correct and said the policy changed in 2022, partly to protect trees during the climate emergency. The Council invited Mr X to apply for a dedicated parking bay due to his health issues.
7. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X has explained why he would like a dropped kerb but the Council’s decision reflects the policy so there is no need to start an investigation. We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to re-make the decision and we cannot ask the Council to give consent when that would be contrary to the policy.
8. Mr X thinks the policy change in 2022 was unnecessary; but the Council provided reasons for the change and it is for the Council, not us, to decide the dropped kerb rules. Mr X says other councils have different rules and do not require two metres between a crossing and a tree. This may be the case as each council sets its own rules; I can only consider if the Council applied its rules correctly and it has.
9. We cannot change the policy or tell the Council it must change it. If Mr X thinks the policy should be changed, he could raise this as an issue with his local councillors. It would be for the Council to decide whether to adjust the policy.

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