Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dropped kerb application because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complained the Council rejected her application for a vehicle crossover dropped kerb application based on a tree, despite previously having rejected her original application due to the gradient of her driveway.
2. Mrs Y says she had the gradient of the driveway altered in order to meet the requirements for a dropper kerb at great expense, which she would not have done had she known that the tree outside her home would cause the application to fail even with the changes made.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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. 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 or continue 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

5. I considered information Mrs Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
7. Mrs Y applied to the Council for a dropper kerb on two occasions. Mrs Y says initially she was told that this was due to the gradient onto her property being greater than 10%, which would not be allowed as stated in the Council’s policy. Consequently, Mrs Y decided to have the gradient at her property altered, intending that she would then re-apply for a dropped kerb, with a lowered gradient and therefore be successful in her application.
8. Following this work and a second application for a dropped kerb, Mrs Y says she was told she would not be granted permission to have a dropped kerb due to a tree, which the Council said needed to be retained, blocking the area outside Mrs Y’s property. She disagreed with this decision, as she felt that if she had known the second application would be unsuccessful, she would not have paid for the work to be carried out. The Council further explained its decision, and showed it had considered Mrs Y’s points but on balance decided against granting the application.
9. As the Council gave no assurance that a second application would be successful and considered its policy, considered the applications on their own merits, as it is required to do, before forming a conclusion, there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision-making process to justify investigation. We will therefore not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman