Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to not remove a redundant dropped kerb on his street. He also complained of poor communication and said the Council gave conflicting information about which residents are permitted to park over the dropped kerbs on his street. We have decided not to investigate the Council’s decision not to remove the dropped kerb, as there is no significant injustice to justify doing so. However, we have investigated Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s poor communication. We find the Council at fault. This has caused Mr X frustration, and he has spent time and trouble attempting to seek clarity on the issue. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and issue written reminders to staff.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council has failed to take action over a dropped kerb outside his neighbour’s property. He says the driveway is too small to fit a vehicle, so the dropped kerb serves no purpose. He says the Council’s refusal to remove the dropped kerb effectively gives his neighbour a guaranteed parking space which is unfair to him and other residents since there is limited parking availability on the street.
2. Mr X also says the Council has given conflicting information about who can park in front of the dropped kerb, and he has spent time and trouble trying to seek clarification. He says this has caused frustration and he wants the Council to remove the dropped kerb and review its dropped kerb policy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. 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

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

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have considered whether the Council’s decision to not remove the dropped kerb outside Mr X’s neighbour’s (Resident A) property has caused Mr X a significant injustice. I understand Mr X feels frustrated by the Council’s decision as there is limited parking availability on his street. He feels neighbours whose properties have redundant dropped kerbs are effectively given guaranteed parking spaces, since they are not subject to being issued with Penalty Charge Notice (PCNs), unlike Mr X and other residents.
9. Although I appreciate Mr X feels frustrated by the situation, there is no significant injustice to warrant further investigation of this matter. First, any direct benefit to Resident A afforded by the dropped kerb is not a direct injustice to Mr X. Secondly, if the dropped kerb was restored to full height, his neighbour’s vehicle would still take up a parking space on the street, and Mr X would not be in a better position than he is currently. The parking difficulties on his street would not be significantly improved. For these reasons I have decided not to investigate the matter relating to the Council’s decision not to remove the dropped kerb.
10. I have investigated Mr X’s reports of poor communication by the Council.

Back to top

What I found

Guidance and Legislation

11. If a motorist needs to drive across the pavement into a driveway or parking area, they need a dropped kerb (sometimes called vehicle crossovers). A dropped kerb or vehicle crossover is an area of lowered pavement and kerbstones.
12. The Council also refers to a dropped kerb as a ‘vehicle crossover’ on its website. It defines this as a sloped area where the vehicle crosses from the road to the driveway. It states applications for a vehicle crossover require a minimum parking area of 4.8 metres deep by 2.4 metres wide.

What happened

13. This is an overview of events and is not intended to detail everything that happened.
14. Mr X complained to the Council in September 2024. He said there were at least two driveways on his road that were too small to accommodate the property owners’ vehicles and so were not in use. He wanted to know whether the off-road space in front of his neighbour’s (Resident A) property met the updated requirements for a dropped kerb. He felt if it did not, the Council should remove the dropped kerb to give residents on the street an extra parking space. He also asked the Council to clarify whether parking over the dropped kerb was a parking violation, since it had issued him with PCNs for parking over the dropped kerb. It had not issued Resident A for parking over the dropped kerb.
15. The Council issued its response in December. It said no one is permitted to park across a dropped kerb at any time. It also explained that 4.8 metres depth from the back of the footway is the updated minimum depth requirement. It acknowledged there are instances where existing driveways do not meet this new requirement. This was because they were in place before the new requirements came into force in the area.
16. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaint process. He felt the Council’s response had not addressed his concerns or explained the Council’s inconsistent practice of issuing PCNs.
17. The Council’s stage two response confirmed the dropped kerb is old and was installed before the new length requirement came into place. It said it does not remove existing dropped kerbs that are less than 4.8 metres deep unless they are redundant due to redevelopment. It also confirmed, in line with 243 of the Highway Code, no one should park in a way that blocks an entrance to a property, and those who do will receive a PCN. It said under Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980, it had a duty to keep such dropped kerbs in place and continue its current parking enforcement approach.
18. In December, Mr X contacted the Council again. He said it still had not explained why he was issued PCNs, but Resident A was not, despite stating no one was allowed to park over a dropped kerb. He said he had previously reported Resident A for parking over the dropped kerb, but the Council told him it could not issue a PCN since they were parked over their own driveway. He said the Council’s stance was inconsistent and he wanted it to clarify its position on the matter to help residents understand the parking rules and resolve neighbour disputes on the street.
19. In January 2025, the Council reiterated that the no parking rule applied to all residents. It asked if Mr X could provide evidence that showed Resident A had been exempt from the rules. It told Mr X to report such parking contraventions.
20. The Council then contacted Mr X again to say that it had held a meeting with its Parking Team. It said if an owner can confirm they are the owners of a property with a dropped kerb directly outside, then they are permitted to park there.
21. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s responses so complained to the Ombudsman in April 2025.

Back to top

Analysis

22. I have reviewed emails between Mr X and the Council, and the Council’s stage two complaint response. I can see the Council gave inconsistent answers about who is permitted to park across the dropped kerb in question. It said in several emails that no one is permitted to park across a dropped kerb and advised Mr X to report any such instances. It did not explain why Mr X had been issued PCNs for parking across the dropped kerb while Resident A had not. I can see that Mr X contacted the Council several times in efforts to seek clarity on its position.
23. It was not until after the Council issued its stage two complaint response that it confirmed its position following a meeting with its Parking Team. It told Mr X it would not issue PCNs to those who parked across the dropped kerbs associated with their own driveways. The Council has also since confirmed to the Ombudsman that is has no policy to support issuing PCNs against residents who park across their own dropped kerb.
24. The Council also accepted it was incorrect to tell Mr X in its stage two response that it has a duty to keep dropped kerbs in place. It has told us there is no specific legislation regarding the removal of redundant dropped kerbs, but rather that it operates in line with standard procedure. The Council has also explained that in line with this procedure it would only remove a redundant dropped kerb if a resident, whose property was associated with the dropped kerb, requested and paid for this in full. However, if it considered that removal was is in its own interest, such as part of a planned regeneration project, or the implementation of a Controlled Parking Zone, then it would potentially carry out the work at its own expense, subject to the resident’s agreement.
25. The Council’s interactions with Mr X show poor communication, which is fault. Mr X has spent significant time and trouble trying to seek clarity on the issue, which has caused him frustration. I have recommended a suitable remedy to address this injustice below.

Back to top

Action

26. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the frustration caused by its poor communication.
2. Issue written reminders to relevant staff to ensure they provide accurate information to residents who enquire about who can park across dropped kerbs.

Back to top

Decision

27. I find fault causing injustice, for which I recommend a remedy. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman