Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb to the front of her property. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb because of a speed bump to the front of her property. She says there are several properties on the road with dropped kerbs granted in similar circumstances which indicates the Council is applying its policy inconsistently and ignores the precedents set. Miss X also complains the Council ignored the benefits of agreeing her application.

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 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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Council’s current vehicle crossover policy (January 2024)
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council’s vehicle crossover policy states:
• it will only consider applications which comply with the current policy;
• older, historic similar crossover installations in the same vicinity do not necessarily mean that a new crossover application will be approved;
• it is the site that will be considered against its policy not the occupier’s circumstances;
• if there are any traffic calming features such as speed bumps that a vehicle could not entirely clear before manoeuvring onto the proposed vehicle crossover then the application will be refused;
• the traffic calming feature must be an absolute minimum of 2 metres distance from the start of the crossover, but may be more depending on the precise layout of the location.
9. Miss X applied to the Council for a vehicle crossover. The Council refused the application, in line with its policy, because of a speed bump within 2 metres of the proposed crossing.
10. Miss X appealed the decision, referring to several other properties on the road with dropped kerbs in similar circumstances as well as several other points in support of her application.
11. The Council maintained its decision to refuse the application in line with its policy and explained its reasons to Miss X.
12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because, whilst I acknowledge Miss X is unhappy with the Council’s decision, there is no sign of fault by the Council here. It has considered and decided her application in line with its current published policy. As set out in the policy the presence of previously granted and installed dropped kerbs locally is not relevant to the Council’s decision on Miss X’s application and does not set a precedent for the Council’s decision now. Policies and eligibility criteria will evolve and change over time for many reasons including improved consideration of safety issues. The existing dropped kerbs may well not meet the current criteria but this does not impact the Council’s consideration of current applications which need to meet the current criteria to succeed.
13. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council's decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes it followed to make its decision. If, as here, we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong even though Miss X disagrees with it.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council in its consideration of her dropped kerb application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman