Summary: We will not investigate Mrs 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 insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb to the front of her property. She says it is becoming difficult to park outside her property due to the number of cars locally. She would like to be able to have a driveway as she does not feel safe walking at night in the area. She also wants to futureproof her property and have wheelchair access in place.

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 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 published Vehicle Cross Over Application Criteria.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mrs X applied to the Council for a vehicle crossover. The Council refused the application due to the large, grass amenity area to the front of her property. It referred to its published application criteria which explains that applications to cross or sever grass amenity areas are most likely to be refused, and it explained its reasons. It also noted that the area to the front of Mrs X’s property did not meet the minimum size criteria for a crossover.
9. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision. In response, the Council accepted there was sufficient space to install a dropped kerb to the side of the property. However, it maintained its decision to refuse the application, in line with its application criteria, due to the loss of the grass amenity area to the front of the property.
10. The Council’s application criteria states that it may class any grass area as an amenity area but it is more likely to consider the length of grass from the kerb to the property of 3 metres to be an amenity area. It says that requests to cross or sever grass amenity areas will most likely be refused. This is due to factors such as the negative impact on the street scene; the impact on highway drainage and the potential to introduce an unsafe environment for children. It can also lead to residents using the space as extra parking which can affect visibility and road safety.
11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because whilst I acknowledge Mrs X is dissatisfied with the Council’s decision, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. It has considered, decided and refused her application in line with the published eligibility criteria and it has explained its reasons. It is a decision it is entitled to make.
12. 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, there is no sign of fault in the way in which the decision was made we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong even though Mrs X disagrees with it.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman