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

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council rejected his application for a dropped kerb vehicle cross over and has refused to refund the application fee despite his driveway being under the required area for a driveway under its policy.
2. Mr Y feels this was unfair when it would have been clear very early in the process that he would not be able to have a dropped kerb and feels it is unfair that others on his road are able to have dropped kerbs despite their driveways being the same size.

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 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 the Council and Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y applied to the Council for permission to have a dropped kerb installed outside his property. Mr Y paid a non-refundable application fee of £438.
7. The Council rejected the application as the driveway outside Mr Y’s property was not of a sufficient area to ensure that vehicles which parked there would not overhang onto the pavement. It explained the required measurements under its policy and explained how Mr Y’s driveway was less than the required area.
8. Mr Y appealed the decision, on the basis that his existing vehicle could park on the driveway, and could therefore charge electronically, without overhanging onto the pavement.
9. Mr Y’s appeal was however rejected by the Council. This was for various reasons, responding to Mr Y’s points of appeal. This included that while Mr Y may make assurances about his vehicle being able to fit onto the driveway, the Council’s policy gave clear measurements for several reasons, including for road and pavement safety. As Mr Y was unhappy with this, and felt his neighbours, with the same size driveways had been allowed to have dropped kerbs unfairly, he approached us.
10. We are not an appeal body. 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.
11. In this case, the Council has considered Mr Y’s circumstances, including the size and area of his driveway. It has then considered its policy and has, in line with that policy, rejected Mr Y’s application. While Mr Y may disagree with the Council’s decision, it has been made with reference to the relevant policy and following an application of the policy to Mr Y’s application. As the decision-making process has been completed properly, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to reject the application to justify our investigation into the matter.
12. Mr Y has also asked for a refund of the application fee of £438. This is advertised on the Council’s website as being “non-refundable”. Mr Y says he thinks that given how quickly the measurements of his own driveway would made it clear to the Council that it would not be approving the application, it should refund him this amount.
13. The measurement requirements are available on the Council’s website on the same page as other information, including about the non-refundable fee, which Mr Y could have referred to prior to his application. As the Council has made this information readily available for applicants and clearly displays the application fee as being non-refundable, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation into this complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman