Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in reaching its decision to refuse her dropped kerb application and that its communication with her was poor. We have not found fault with the way the Council reached the decision but we found its communication with her was poor, causing confusion and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council delayed its decision to refuse her dropped kerb application. She also complained that communication from the Council was delayed and confusing, which caused her uncertainty and inconvenience as she had to keep chasing the Council for updates.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have investigated

7. Mrs X was aware of poor and confusing communication by the Council by August 2023. This is more than 12 months ago. However, the Council told Mrs X it was still considering her application or awaiting quotes. It told Mrs X her application was refused in October 2024. I find this to be a good reason for Mrs X to have waited before bringing her complaint to us. I have therefore considered events since April 2023, when Mrs X first made her dropped kerb application.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

What I found

Vehicle crossings

10. Dropped kerbs, also known as vehicle crossovers, provide a means of access to a private driveway from the public highway. 
11. Applications for dropped kerbs are made under Section 184(11) of the Highways Act 1980 which gives councils discretion to decide whether to approve them. Councils should have their own policies and criteria for deciding applications. These may limit eligibility depending on the presence of trees and other obstructions.

The Council’s Footway Crossings Policy

12. The Council’s guidance, available on its website, sets the criteria it will use to assess applications. This states an application will be rejected if there is a healthy, well-established tree in close proximity.
13. Section 23 of the Council’s policy, issued March 2023, states “a quotation for a standard footway crossing will normally be provided within 20 working days of the application being received. If street furniture or utility apparatus is involved, it could take much longer to provide a quote”.

What happened

14. Mrs X made a dropped kerb application to the Council in April 2023. Council inspectors attended in April and July 2023. Each gave conflicting advice about different trees on the site needing removal before installing a dropped kerb. One said the Council would fund the tree removal, and the other said there would be a cost to Mrs X. The Council then rejected Mrs X’s application.
15. Mrs X complained to the Council in August 2023 about the rejected application, particularly about the delays and confusion. The Council responded in October 2023 and apologised for the delays and confirmed which tree would need to be removed. The Council said an inspector would attend shortly to re-assess the site and confirm all was in order before it would provide a quote for the work.
16. The inspector did not visit until February 2024, after which the Council told Mrs X it would seek quotes and get back in touch. Mrs X says she did not hear from the Council again until October 2024 when she asked for an update and was told someone would contact her.
17. Mrs X raised a stage 2 complaint in December 2024. The Council responded and confirmed Mrs X’s dropped kerb application was refused on the basis that the trees could not be removed.

Analysis

18. The Highways Act 1980, section 184(11), gives councils discretion to decide whether to approve applications for dropped kerbs. The Council’s policy clearly states an application can be refused because “a healthy, well established tree is in close proximity”. The Council says it uses a scoring system to assess trees. Both trees in question were scored to be retained and have historic significance.
19. There is no fault in the way the Council made its final decision to refuse Mrs X’s dropped kerb application because of the trees. However, there has been confusing and conflicting information provided to Mrs X which has caused her uncertainty.
20. I have not seen any evidence the Council contacted Mrs X during several periods since her application, between April and July 2023, October 2023 and February 2024, and from February 2024 until December 2024. Whilst there is no statutory timeframe for how long councils should take to respond to a dropped kerb application, they should have their own policies on this.
21. The Council’s guidance says it normally expects to provide a quote for work within 20 working days of receipt of the dropped kerb application, although this could take longer. I would expect the Council to advise applicants of a refusal within a similar timeframe. The Council issued a final refusal of Mrs X’s application over 18 months after her initial application. I do not consider the issue of the trees is sufficient reason for such a prolonged delay. This is fault, which has caused Mrs X uncertainty and inconvenience.
22. The Council also delayed responding to Mrs X’s stage 1 complaint. The Council’s complaints procedure states it will respond to complaints within 15 working days, but it only responded to Mrs X after nearly 2 months.
23. The Council apologised to Mrs X for the delays in its complaint response of October 2023. In an email to Mrs X in October 2024 it also acknowledged Mrs X had experienced poor service and received conflicting information.
24. Mrs X had to chase the Council for updates over a prolonged period, which caused her uncertainty and inconvenience. The conflicting information provided by the Council also caused her uncertainty. This is also fault which has caused injustice to Mrs X.

Back to top

Action

25. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mrs X, I recommend, within one month of the final decision, the Council should:
1. Apologise to Mrs X in accordance with our guidance on making an effective apology;
2. Pay Mrs X £200 in recognition of the avoidable inconvenience and uncertainty.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

27. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman