Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his dropped kerb application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council wrongly refused his application for a dropped kerb. Mr B says the Council introduced a new refusal reason relating to a traffic calming measure in response to his appeal which meant he did not get the chance to respond. Mr B also says the traffic calming measure is not directly in front of his property, and other properties next to traffic calming measures have dropped kerbs. Mr B does not consider the Council has treated him fairly.

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 B and have viewed his property on Google Streetview. I have also considered the Council’s Dropped Kerb Approval Guidance.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into this complaint.
6. The Council’s decision letter said Mr B’s application had been refused because of a land ownership issue. But, the letter also referred to the relevant section of the Council’s Dropped Kerb Application Guidance which says crossings will generally not be approved where the crossover is in close proximity to certain highway features. This list of highway features includes traffic calming measures.
7. There is a traffic calming measure close to Mr B’s property. So, it would have been reasonable for Mr B to assume this was another reason why the Council had refused his application.
8. The Council’s decision was in line with its Dropped Kerb Approval Guidance. The presence of a traffic calming measure in close proximity to Mr B’s property was a relevant factor for the Council to take into account. The guidance does not say a traffic calming measure will only be taken into account if it is directly in front of the application property. The Council must apply its current guidance to Mr B’s application. Other dropped kerbs nearby may be unauthorised or approved under previous policies.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman