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

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Council has refused her application to have a vehicle cross over dropped kerb installed at her property and have said it will install a metal post which will stop her from accessing her driveway.
2. Miss Y says she will be unable to access the right-hand side of her driveway once the metal post has been installed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered the information Miss Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss Y asked a local councillor about having a vehicle cross over dropped kerb (VCO) outside her property. This enquiry was then passed to the Council. The Council explained that as Miss Y’s property came out onto a speed hump, under its policy, it would likely refuse the application.
8. Miss Y was unhappy with the decision and asked to appeal and complained that she had been told that the Council would place a bollard on the verge outside her property as an enforcement action, which she says would prevent her from driving over the pavement to park her car on her driveway. She later approached us.
9. We are not an appeal body. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. In this case, the Council applied Miss Y’s circumstances and request for a VCO to its policy and in line with its policy, refused her request. As the Council considered relevant factors in making its decision, there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify investigation. We will not investigate.
10. Miss Y has also complained about the Council’s plans to potentially place a bollard on the verge outside her property, relating to an enforcement issue. As there is no VCO for her property, it is unlawful for drivers to cross over the pavement or the verge, either to access the property or to park on the pavement. This is stated in the Council’s VCO policy, which it provided to Miss Y.
11. While there is not information that we have provided that the enforcement action relates to any action by Miss Y, the verge is land owned by the Council, and in the absence of a VCO agreement, it is entitled to place a bollard on this land if it wishes to for any reason. It is therefore not at fault for informing Miss Y that it may take this action and is under no obligation to have informed her prior to taking such action. If it did place a bollard on the verge, this would be the Council’s choice as the landowner. Consequently, as there is not enough evidence of fault, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman