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

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has applied its dropped kerb vehicle crossover policy too rigidly and without regard to safety and has refused to reconsider his request for a dropped kerb unless he makes an appeal through its formal process, which will cost him a £480 fee to apply to (£258 of which is non-refundable).
2. Mr Y says he has to walk along the road as the pavement outside his home is full of parked cars, which he says is a risk to his safety and feels let down by the Council. In his view, the fee is a financial burden to unfairly stop those who wish to appeal decisions which have been made rigidly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

4. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y contacted the Council to ask about potentially applying for a dropped kerb outside his property. Mr Y acknowledged that his driveway was shorter than the specified minimum of 4.8 metres but said that parking on the pavement on his road were leading to safety concerns and asked if the Council would relax its policy requirements to allow him to park off the road and install a dropped kerb.
6. The Council explained its policy, which has a minimum requirement for a driveway length. This is to ensure vehicles do not overhang onto the pavement. It said it would not approve a shorter driveway length for a dropped kerb vehicle cross over.
7. Mr Y asked to appeal this, but was told by the Council he would need to make a formal application and the Council make a formal decision on the matter as it was only responding to a request to advice. Mr Y was unhappy about this due to the cost involved, which would include a partially non-refundable fee of £ (£258 of which is non-refundable). Mr Y then approached us.
8. In this case, the Council has tried to help Mr Y by giving advice on its policy and processes when it has told him about the minimum length of driveway needed. As Mr Y has not made a formal application, the Council has not made a formal decision in the matter. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council outlining its policy to Mr Y to justify investigation. We will not investigate.
9. Were the Council to make a decision, we would expect it to follow its policy unless there are good reasons to depart from it in its view, in which case we would expect the Council to record the reasons why it is not following its policy. Councils are however, able to use their judgement in such matters based on their policies.
10. Mr Y is unhappy the Council has a charge for making decisions on vehicle crossovers and dropped kerb applications. Councils are able to make charges for parts of its services. The Council’s information in this case about its charges are visible on its website and has been explained to Mr Y. It is Mr Y’s choice whether he wants to make an application but there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s proposed charges for consideration of an application to justify investigation. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman