Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her application for a dropped kerb outside her property. She says the Council did not consider her household’s medical needs when making its decision to reject her application. We find the Council at fault for poor record keeping and for failing to consider the medical needs of Ms X’s household. This has caused Ms X an injustice in the form of frustration and uncertainty. We recommend the Council apologises to Ms X and reconsiders her application.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her request for a dropped kerb outside her property. She says the Council failed to consider her own and her son’s medical needs when it rejected her application. As a result, she says it is difficult for her and her son to leave their home, which has affected their physical and mental health. She wants the Council to install a dropped kerb.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered all comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant guidance

6. If a motorist needs to drive across the pavement into a driveway or parking area, they need a dropped kerb. A dropped kerb or vehicle crossover is an area of lowered pavement and kerbstones. The property owner must get the authority’s permission to install a dropped kerb. They might also need to get planning permission.
7. Authorities have their own processes, fees and rules for approving dropped kerb applications. We expect authorities to be clear and make people aware of any relevant conditions before they pay a fee which they may not get back.
8. The Council’s policy states that the minimum depth of a proposed parking area must measure at least 4.8 metres deep, from the front of a property to the property’s boundary line. The minimum width must be 2.4 metres. It also states there may be instances where these criteria are not met, and in such cases, a Highway Inspector will visit the property to make an assessment.

What happened

9. Ms X and her son have disabilities, and both hold Blue Badges. She says parking on her street is difficult due to overcrowding, and she often cannot park close to her property. On these occasions, she says getting her son safely from the car to their property is a struggle.
10. In June 2025, Ms X asked the Council to install a dropped kerb and convert her front garden into a driveway so she could park directly outside her property.
11. The Council said it made a site visit to assess the space outside Ms X’s property. The Council refused her application in mid-June. It said there was insufficient depth between the front of Ms X’s property and the property boundary.
12. Ms X submitted a stage one complaint. She explained her son’s medical needs and the impact that parking further from her home had on them. She also said nearby neighbours had converted their front gardens into driveways and did not consider it fair that she was not permitted to do the same.
13. The Council responded on the same day. It said it had rejected her application because the minimum depth required to fully take a vehicle off the highway was 4.8 metres, and the depth of Ms X’s garden was measured as 4.5 metres.
14. Ms X phoned the Council in August to escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaints process. She said her driveway fell only 0.3 metres short of the minimum and that she could park diagonally across the driveway to avoid vehicle overhang. She also noted that nearby residents had parked their vehicles diagonally.
15. The Council responded in September. It said driveways requiring vehicles to park at an angle would not be approved under its current guidance.
16. Ms X approached the Ombudsman in October 2025.

Back to top

Analysis

17. 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.
18. The Council’s policy states that where an applicants proposed parking area does not meet the minimum size requirements, a Highway Inspector will visit the property to make an assessment. In this case, the depth of Ms X’s front garden fell short by 0.3 metres. A site visit was carried out, however it is not clear who carried out the visit and whether they were suitably qualified to do so. Further, the Council said it was unable to provide notes from its site visit as the inspector had now left their role. Without these records, I cannot see how the Council made its decision to reject Ms X’s application. This is fault. Councils should retain records of site assessments even after staff members leave, and I would expect the Council to ensure it retains such records in future.
19. The Council told the Ombudsman it did not consider the medical needs of Ms X’s household when making its decision and made its decision based only on measurements of the front garden and the impact on the safety of road users.
20. Councils generally have discretion to disapply criteria where there are good reasons to do so. The Council said it excluded medical need from its decision-making because its policy does not include it as a factor. However, the policy does not specifically exclude medical need either. The policy makes provision for discretion in some cases where the criteria are not met. I would have expected the Council to consider the medical circumstances once Ms X raised them before reaching a decision. Failure to do that is fault. Further, the Council’s complaint investigation was not thorough, as its response letters to Ms X did not address the issues she raised about the medical needs of her household not being considered.
21. To make its decision in such cases and in accordance with the Council’s policy, we would expect a Highways Inspector to visit an applicant’s property, consider the application on its own merits and retain records of the visit and its decision making. We would also expect the Council to exercise discretion and consider the medical needs of Ms X’s household.
22. Based on the above, Ms X has been caused frustration and left with uncertainty about whether her application was properly considered.

Back to top

Actions

23. Within one month of my decision the Council will:
1. apologise to Ms X for the uncertainty and frustration she experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet.
2. reconsider Ms X’s application, carry out a site visit by a Highways Inspector and remind officers of the need to consider Ms X’s household medical needs. The Council should then write to Ms X to explain its decision.

Back to top

Decision

24. I find fault causing an injustice to Ms X. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy that injustice.
25. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman