Summary: Miss X complained the Council misinformed her about the process for applying for a dropped kerb and failed to respond to her enquiry about parking bays outside her property. She said this caused confusion and uncertainty about the application process and potential costs. We found fault causing injustice because the Council failed to identify earlier that the parking bay would affect the application and did not respond to Miss X’s enquiry. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council misinformed her about the dropped kerb application process and failed to respond to her query about the effect of newly implemented parking bays. Miss X says this led her to pay for a Road Safety Audit that was not needed at that stage. Miss X also says the Council delayed in assisting to facilitate payment resulting in further delays. Miss X considers the Council should have made the implications of the parking scheme and its effect on applications clearer from the outset, particularly given the financial implications. Miss X says she seeks either approval of her dropped kerb application or a refund of the costs incurred, and asks the Council to improve how it informs residents about the process.

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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Vehicle crossovers (dropped kerbs)

7. Councils are responsible for managing and maintaining the public highway in their areas. As part of this role they may consider requests from residents to install vehicle crossovers (often referred to as dropped kerbs) to allow access from the highway to private land.
8. Applications for vehicle crossovers are assessed against highway safety considerations and the council’s design standards. Approval of a crossover does not automatically follow a feasibility assessment. Applicants may also need to complete further steps before the Council will approve and construct the crossover.

The Council’s design standards

9. The Council’s Streetscape Design Manual sets out the standards used when assessing proposals for vehicle crossovers. Design Standard DS.132 explains the requirements for designing and approving new vehicle crossings.
10. The standard says the Highway Authority will not accept a design for a new vehicle crossing until certain actions are completed. These may include payment of relevant fees and completion of technical assessments required for the proposal.
11. The standard says a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Road Safety Audit must be completed where one is required before a design for a new vehicle crossing can be accepted.
12. The standard explains a Road Safety Audit may be required in certain circumstances, including where:
• the crossing is located on a classified road (an A or B road);
• the crossing serves commercial premises;
• the proposed design conflicts with location criteria requiring a design departure; or
• the Highway Authority determines an audit is required on a case-specific basis.

Back to top

What happened

13. Miss X contacted the Council to ask about applying for a dropped kerb outside her property.
14. The Council provided information about the application process and advised Miss X she would need to submit a feasibility assessment request and pay a fee. Miss X submitted the request and paid the required fee.
15. The Council carried out a feasibility assessment in July 2023. Miss X then progressed with the application process.
16. The Council advised Miss X that a Road Safety Audit (RSA) would be required as part of the design process for the proposed vehicle crossover.
17. Separately, the Council was introducing a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in the area. The Council had consulted residents about the scheme and made a decision in April 2023 to introduce it. The scheme became operational in October 2023. As part of the scheme, parking bays were installed on Peckham Park Road, including outside Miss X’s property.
18. Miss X says she emailed the Council in September 2023 to ask whether the new parking bays would affect her dropped kerb application.
19. Miss X later became aware that the parking bay outside her property would need to be removed before a vehicle crossover could be installed. The Council told her this would require a separate process and a decision by Cabinet. Miss X was also told that a £1,000 fee would be required for the application to be considered through this process.
20. In July 2024 Miss X complained to the Council about the handling of her application and the costs involved.
21. The Council responded at stage one of its complaints procedure in July 2024. Miss X asked the Council to review the complaint.
22. The Council issued its stage two response in November 2024 and said it had not identified fault in the handling of the application. Miss X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Enquiries to the Council

23. We made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided by both parties. Of note, the Council told us:
• the feasibility assessment for the dropped kerb was carried out in July 2023;
• the decision to introduce the Controlled Parking Zone affecting Miss X’s road was made in April 2023 and the scheme became operational in October 2023;
• the team responsible for processing dropped kerb applications was not aware the CPZ would affect the location at the time the feasibility assessment was carried out;
• a Road Safety Audit was required as part of the vehicle crossover design process; and
• Cabinet has since approved the proposal to remove the parking bay outside Miss X’s property. The Council says the matter has been passed to the traffic management order team to carry out the statutory consultation required to change the traffic order.

The Road Safety Audit

24. Miss X says the Council misled her into paying for a Road Safety Audit (RSA) which she later understood was not necessary. She says she would not have incurred this cost had the Council explained earlier that the parking bay outside her property would need to be removed through a separate process requiring Cabinet approval and an additional fee.
25. The Council says the RSA formed part of the design process for the proposed vehicle crossover and would have been required regardless of the later issue concerning the parking bay.
26. The Council provided its Streetscape Design Manual which sets out the standards used when assessing vehicle crossover proposals. Design Standard DS.132 says the Highway Authority will not accept a design for a new vehicle crossing until certain actions are completed, which may include a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Road Safety Audit where one is required.
27. The standard explains an RSA may be required in several circumstances, including where the crossing is located on a classified road, serves commercial premises, conflicts with location criteria requiring a design departure, or where the Highway Authority determines an audit is required on a case-specific basis.
28. This shows the Council’s design standards allow RSAs to form part of the vehicle crossover design process. The evidence provided does not show the Council applied its design standards incorrectly when it required Miss X to obtain the RSA.
29. Miss X’s concern is that she incurred the cost of the RSA before learning that removing the parking bay outside her property would require a separate decision-making process and an additional fee. However, the evidence suggests the RSA related to the technical design stage of the vehicle crossover, whereas the later Cabinet decision concerned a separate process required to remove a parking bay through a traffic management order.
30. Even if the issue with the parking bay had been identified earlier, it is likely Miss X would still have needed to obtain an RSA if the vehicle crossover were to proceed.
31. The Council has not been able to provide the feasibility assessment notes or earlier email correspondence explaining the decision to require the RSA. This limits the documentary evidence available about the advice given to Miss X at the time. However, given the Council’s design standards allow RSAs to be required as part of the crossover design process, I have not seen evidence that the Council required the RSA incorrectly. For these reasons, I cannot conclude the Council caused Miss X to incur the cost of the Road Safety Audit unnecessarily.

The impact of the Controlled Parking Zone on Miss X’s application

32. The evidence shows the Council decided to introduce the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) affecting Miss X’s road in April 2023. The feasibility assessment for Miss X’s dropped kerb application took place in July 2023. Parking bays were later installed as part of the CPZ scheme.
33. The Council told us the team responsible for processing vehicle crossover applications was not aware that the CPZ would affect the location when it carried out the feasibility assessment.
34. While this explains how the situation arose, it also indicates that different parts of the Council were progressing the CPZ scheme and Miss X’s dropped kerb application without awareness of each other’s work.
35. Councils are responsible for ensuring their services operate in a coordinated way. In this case the CPZ scheme had already been approved before the feasibility assessment for the dropped kerb took place. The Council therefore already knew the layout of the road would be changing as part of the scheme.
36. However, the dropped kerb application continued through the feasibility stage without identifying that a parking bay would later be introduced outside the property. Miss X only learned later that the bay would need to be removed through a separate process requiring Cabinet approval and an additional fee.
37. Even if the Council officers handling the application were not personally aware of the CPZ, this does not fully address the issue. The Council, as an organisation, was progressing both the CPZ scheme and the dropped kerb application at the same time. In these circumstances it is reasonable to expect the Council to have systems in place to identify where major highway changes may affect active applications.
38. Because this did not happen, Miss X progressed through part of the application process before learning that removing the parking bay would require a separate decision and additional cost.
39. I consider this lack of coordination between Council services amounts to fault. This fault did not affect whether the dropped kerb could ultimately proceed. However, it meant Miss X was not given a clear understanding of the full process and potential costs at an earlier stage. This caused avoidable frustration and uncertainty while she pursued her application.

Communication during the application process

40. Miss X says she emailed the Council in September 2023 asking whether the newly introduced parking bays outside her property would affect her dropped kerb application. She says she did not receive a response.
41. The Council says it has no record of receiving this email. However, the Council also told us it no longer holds email records from before October 2023. This means it cannot check whether the email was received or what response may have been sent.
42. Miss X’s account of the enquiry is plausible. At that stage of the application process the Controlled Parking Zone had been introduced and parking bays had appeared on the road. It would have been reasonable for Miss X to ask whether this change affected her application. Her later complaint about the parking bays affecting the dropped kerb application is also consistent with the enquiry she says she made at the time.
43. Because the Council no longer holds the relevant email records, it cannot provide evidence showing whether it received or responded to the enquiry. In these circumstances, and on the balance of probabilities, I consider it more likely than not that Miss X did contact the Council to ask whether the parking bays would affect her application.
44. If the Council had responded to this enquiry it could have explained that removing the parking bay might require a separate decision-making process and additional cost. Miss X did not receive this information at the time and continued the application process without that clarification. I consider the failure to respond to this enquiry was fault.
45. Miss X also says the Council delayed providing the correct link to pay the £1,000 fee required for the Cabinet process. She says she was sent incorrect links several times and this delayed her application.
46. The Council disputes this and says it sent the correct payment link. The evidence provided does not clearly show what happened. Because of this, I cannot determine whether the delay Miss X describes was caused by the Council.

Injustice

47. Miss X experienced frustration and uncertainty because of the faults I have identified.
48. The Council did not identify earlier in the application process that the parking bay outside Miss X’s property would affect the proposed vehicle crossover. Miss X also asked the Council whether the parking bays would affect her application and did not receive a response. Because of this, Miss X continued the application process without a clear understanding that removing the parking bay would require a separate decision-making process and an additional fee.
49. This meant Miss X only became aware later in the process that her application would require Cabinet approval and a further payment. I am satisfied this caused avoidable frustration and uncertainty while she pursued the application.
50. However, the evidence does not show the Council’s faults caused Miss X to incur the cost of the Road Safety Audit unnecessarily. The Council’s design standards allow a Road Safety Audit to be required as part of the vehicle crossover design process. The evidence therefore does not show Miss X would have avoided this cost even if the issues with the parking bay had been identified earlier.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. To remedy the frustration and uncertainty caused by the faults I have identified, the Council will:
1. pay Miss X £150 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council’s failure to identify earlier that the parking bay outside her property would affect her application and its failure to respond to Miss X’s enquiry about the parking bays.
2. carry out a review of the process for assessing vehicle crossover applications to consider how officers identify whether other highway schemes, such as Controlled Parking Zones or parking bay changes, may affect an application. The review should ensure officers are able to give applicants accurate and up-to-date information about the process and any additional approvals or costs that may arise.
52. The Council will complete action point a within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision, and action point b within three months of the Ombudsman’s final decision. The Council will provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has completed the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

53. We found fault causing injustice because the Council failed to identify earlier that the parking bay would affect the application and did not respond to Miss X’s enquiry. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman