Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dropped kerb and highways enforcement matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complained the Council threatened to prosecute her for using ramps on the highway to cross over the pavement in her vehicle onto her property. She also complained the Council has refused to fund a vehicle crossover dropped kerb, despite her being disabled and being unable to pay the fee of approximately £4,000. Ms Y is also unhappy with the Council’s response to her complaint.

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 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Ms Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Dropped kerbs, also known as vehicle crossovers, provide a means of access to a private driveway from the public highway. 
7. Under section 184 of the Highways Act 1980, it is illegal to drive over the pavement unless there is a crossover and there is no right to drive across any public footway, such as a pavement, to access a private driveway unless there is a properly built vehicle crossover. The Council, as the Highways Authority, is responsible to the maintenance of the highway and pavement, and crossing the pavement illegally in this way may cause damage. Where councils become aware of motorists committing such offences, they may write to residents to warn of this, including telling them that they may be prosecuted, and to invite them to apply for a dropped kerb.
8. Any warning Ms Y may have received from the Council about driving over the pavement without a properly built dropped kerb in place, even where others may not have received the same warning, is unlikely to be fault. As there is not enough evidence of fault, we will not investigate.
9. Ms Y has complained that the Council has refused to fund the work needed for her to have a dropped kerb installed outside her property. Ms Y says she needs to park near her front door as she has a disability and struggles to access her property otherwise. The Council has provided Ms Y with information about how to apply for a dropped kerb and has told her the likely cost is approximately £4,000. Ms Y has told the Council she cannot afford this.
10. The Council said it is not required to contribute any funding towards a dropped kerb. However, as Ms Y has a blue badge, it has offered to contribute £1,000 towards the costs. Ms Y feels this is insufficient and feels the Council is wrongly denying her a reasonable adjustment of the Council paying for the dropped kerb.
11. The Equality Act 2010 protects people from discrimination arising from disability. Disability discrimination is when a person is treated less well or put at a disadvantage for a reason that relates to a disability in one of the situations set out in the Equality Act, one of those being when a person has contact with public bodies like a local council. But councils are not required to do more than is reasonable for them to do. What is reasonable depends on a number of factors. 
12. In this case, the Council has considered Ms Y’s disability and her blue badge and has therefore offered to make an adjustment to its process by offering to contribute £1,000 towards the cost of a dropped kerb. It has balanced the circumstances of Ms Y’s request with its ability to maximise the available public funding it has to contribute towards as many eligible applicants as possible. It has therefore considered the practicality, cost and the resources it has available. As it has decided Ms Y’s request properly and found that it cannot reasonably meet her adjustment request and explained its rationale. We would not find fault in the Council’s decision not to fully fund the dropped kerb.
13. As we are not investigating the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council responded to or dealt with Ms Y’s complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms 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