Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dropped kerb because any injustice is not significant enough to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council approved and installed a dropped kerb without proper consideration of the loss of parking this would cause on his road.
2. Mr Y says this has reduced visitor parking on the road and other residents are parking on paths due to the loss of parking space.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. As part of its complaint handling process, the Council partially upheld Mr Y’s complaint as not all details which should have been included in the consideration of the application were included. It apologised and agreed to review its process for dropped kerb applications, to which it would consider any suggestions Mr Y may wish to make to improve the process. It also provided further training to the staff member involved and apologised.
6. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
7. In this case, the application may still have been approved, even if the information had been included about the layby outside Mr Y and the applicant’s properties. Further parking is not a right, and while parking on the road may have been reduced, there are several places to park in the area for visitors. While this may at times cause some mild inconvenience to Mr Y, we would not consider this a serious loss, harm or distress which would warrant use of public resources to investigate. As any injustice is not significant enough to justify investigation, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman