Summary: Mr X complained the Council had not given fair or full consideration to his application to have a dropped kerb outside his property which led to the application being rejected. We found the Council should provide further justification for its decision, remind staff to clearly communicate decision reasons and apologise to Mr X for the distress caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not given fair or full consideration to his application to have a dropped kerb outside his property. He says that his application was declined without explanation. This has impacted him by causing distress in the form of frustration in the delay in converting his garden to a driveway.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
6. I have also considered the relevant statutory guidance, as set out below. In addition, I have considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

7. If a motorist needs to drive across the pavement into a driveway or parking area, they need a dropped kerb. A dropped kerb or vehicle crossover is an area of lowered pavement and kerbstones. The property owner must get the authority’s permission to install a dropped kerb. They might also need to get planning permission.
8. Authorities have their own processes, fees and rules for approving dropped kerb applications. We expect authorities to be clear and make people aware of any relevant conditions before they pay a fee which they may not get back.

What happened

9. Mr X says that he applied to his District Council to convert his garden to a driveway which it approved. He then approached the County Council to apply for a dropped kerb outside his property.
10. Mr X says the (County) Council rejected his application without explanation. In December 2024 he contacted the Council to find out its reasons for rejecting his application while also making an appeal.
11. The Council says the space outside Mr X’s property is not big enough for parking. It reports that due to a lighting column the site does not also offer the required room for a dropped kerb.

Analysis

12. I find the Council had a responsibility to explain any decision it made to Mr X clearly. Mr X had to contact the Council to gain clear feedback, and I consider the failure to provide this from the outset to be fault by the Council.
13. This fault impacted Mr X by causing him distress in the form of frustration in having to contact the Council back and by feeling the Council were not treating him fairly. The Council should therefore apologise to Mr X for the distress this issue has caused.
14. The Council explains that when an application is approved or declined, its system sends out an automated response. The comments from the inspector giving the reasons for the decision should be added to a specific part of the system. In this case, the Council confirms the inspector wrote their response in the notes section. This meant that Mr X did not receive the more detailed response from the Council.
15. I consider there is no fault in the way the Council made its decision. However there is fault by the Council in its continued failure to notice that it had not provided Mr X with a detailed explanation.
16. I find therefore that the Council should write to Mr X and provide a full explanation into its decision and provide him with fresh appeal rights if necessary.
17. The Council should also remind its staff of the importance of logging reasoning in the ‘attributes section’ of its system, to help prevent a reoccurrence of this issue going forward.

Back to top

Action

18. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Mr X for the unnecessary and avoidable distress caused by the failure to consider the application fully. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
2. Provide a full explanation of its reasoning into the decision, along with new appeal rights to Mr X
3. Confirm that it has reminded staff of the importance of logging reasoning in the ‘attributes section’ of its system.
19. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

20. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and provide a full explanation to Mr X of its reasoning, providing new appeal rights and confirm to its staff the importance of logging decision reasoning in its system.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman