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

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has treated his application for a dropped kerb unfairly compared to several other local properties. He cannot understand why the other properties were granted permission for a dropped kerb in similar circumstances to his application. He believes the Council has singled him out and is treating him unfairly.

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 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))
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
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 his application, in line with its policy, because the property frontage was too small; the embankment was too steep and the grass verge in front of his property was too large. It upheld its decision at appeal stage.
9. Mr X complained to the Council about its decision. He said other properties on his road, or nearby, had been granted approval for dropped kerbs in similar circumstances since the current policy was put in place in 2019. He questioned why his had been refused when others were agreed.
10. In response, the Council explained it had found errors in the decision making process on some applications received since 2019 when the current policy was put in place. It explained the officer responsible for those decisions is no longer employed by the Council and it cannot clarify the reasons why those decisions were made. It apologised to Mr X for this, but explained that any previous errors do not act as a precedent for future applications. It confirmed its decision to refuse Mr X’s application had been made in line with its policy.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in its consideration of Mr X’s application to warrant an investigation. It considered and decided it in line with its policy. It found and acknowledged there had been errors on some previous applications locally however, this does not mean the Council should repeat any such errors in its consideration of Mr X’s application, which does not meet the criteria for a dropped kerb.
12. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. In deciding Mr X’s application it took account of all the information Mr X provided as well as its policy and it reached a decision in line with this. As there is no sign of fault in the process by which it made its decision we cannot question it.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in its consideration of his application to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman