Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to approve a dropped kerb outside Mr X’s property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council refused his application for a dropped kerb, saying that the decision was unfair and failed to consider his individual circumstances. He also said the decision appeared inconsistent when compared to other properties. Mr X said this caused inconvenience, distress, and a negative impact on family life.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X states the Council refused his application for a dropped kerb.
6. The Council has a statutory duty to manage the highway safely and fairly. Its published Vehicle Crossover Policy (2023) sets out the criteria for approving dropped kerbs, including a minimum hard-standing depth of 4.8 meters (or 4.6 in meters in limited cases). The policy also states that “no short-frontage agreement will be entered into” because vehicles overhanging the footpath would present a hazard to pedestrians.
7. The Council inspected Mr X’s property and found the hard-standing area fails the required standard. It refused the application on this basis, explaining that granting an exception would create a safety risk. The Council also explained that factors Mr X cited did not override the safety-based criteria in the policy.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.
9. In this case, the evidence shows the Council considered Mr X’s application in line with its published policy and explained its decision. I have not seen the evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision therefore will not be investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman