Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her application for a dropped kerb to the front of her property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb to the front of her property. Ms X says the Council has not clearly explained its decision and she feels unfairly treated as two other properties on the same part of the road have had dropped kerbs agreed.

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 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))
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. Ms X applied to the Council for a dropped kerb to the front of her property.
8. The Council refused her application because construction of a dropped kerb at the requested location would have a significant impact on local parking demand. This is because there is a parking area in front of Ms X’s property.
9. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision and provided additional information about her parking concerns and plans to buy an electric vehicle which she would want to charge close to her property. The Council considered the information Ms X provided and carried out an on-site inspection and obtained a second opinion via a senior officer. It maintained its decision to refuse the application due to the detrimental impact it would have on the historically parked area in front of her property. This is for everyone to use and agreeing the application would have a detrimental impact on the many properties who use the area to park. It explained its reasons to Ms X.
10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because, whilst I acknowledge Ms X is dissatisfied with the Council’s decision there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in its handling of her application to warrant an investigation. It considered Ms X’s application in line with its policy and has clearly explained its reasons in its written correspondence.
11. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council’s decision to decide whether it is wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decision. The Council took account of its policy and the information Ms X provided as well as seeking a further, second opinion on this application. These is no sign of fault in how it made its decision and I cannot therefore question whether its decision was right or wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman