Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb. Mr X says most other properties on the road have dropped kerbs and so parking is difficult to find. He would like to be able to park outside the house due to his mother’s age and health needs. He is also dissatisfied he paid £206 for the assessment of his application which took no more than 5 minutes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start 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))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant. I considered the Council’s Vehicle Cross Over (VSO) Application Criteria (October 2021).
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X applied to the Council for a dropped kerb to the front of his property.
8. The Council refused Mr X’s application because his property frontage does not meet the minimum size requirements as set out in its published vehicle cross over application criteria. This states you must have at least 4.8 metres between the back of the pavement or property boundary and the front of your building. Mr X’s property frontage measures only 2.6 metres from his bay window.
9. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. It maintained its decision to refuse the application and explained that it no longer allows any cross overs which do not meet the minimum depth requirements and existing local crossovers cannot be used or considered in justification in an appeal.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because whilst I acknowledge Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision there is no sign of fault in the way it assessed and decided his application. It has refused it in line with the published eligibility criteria which apply to all applicants. This states that if the property frontage does not meet the minimum size criteria then the application will be refused. It also advises applicants to fully review the criteria before making an application to be sure they are satisfied the application meets the criteria as the initial application fee is non-refundable.
11. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council’s decision to decide whether it is wrong. Instead we look at the way in which it made the decision. If, as here, we find no fault in the way the Council made its decision we cannot question it, regardless of whether Mr X disagrees with it.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman