Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her dropped kerb application and parking near her home. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her dropped kerb application and nearby parking. She says this means it is often difficult to park outside her home and this is causing her anxiety. She wants the Council to approve 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 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))
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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. Applications are made under Section 184(11) of the Highways Act 1980, which gives councils a wide discretion to decide whether to approve them.
6. Miss X complains the Council refused her application because it said approval would require removing a nearby tree and there were no grounds to do so. She says there is enough space for a dropped kerb and vehicle access without removing the tree. She also says the Council approved other local residents’ applications where there was a tree near the relevant kerb.
7. Miss X says parking outside her home has become an issue since the Council ended free parking nearby. This means drivers attending a nearby venue now park outside her home despite restrictions. She says the drivers are not deterred when the Council issues them with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
8. In its complaint response, the Council said it had reviewed Miss X’s application and its case notes and arranged another site inspection to look at the nearby tree. It said it considered whether it could stabilise the tree while installing the dropped kerb but found removal was the only solution. It said the tree was healthy and no exemptions applied to Miss X’s application under the Environmental Act 2021 so it would not remove the tree. It therefore refused her dropped kerb application.
9. As to the other residents’ applications Miss X mentioned, the Council said it likely granted these without adequately consulting with its tree department. It said it now prioritised environmental considerations when deciding such applications.
10. The Council also acknowledged the parking issues related to the venue near Miss X’s home. It said it had issued 169 PCNs in the previous six weeks and introduced new restrictions in the area. It also signposted Miss X to its application process for a local parking permit.
11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. The Council was entitled to refuse Miss X’s application and clearly explained its reasons for doing so. It has also explained why it approved other residents’ applications, and what steps it is taking to improve parking in her area. We cannot find the Council at fault where drivers choose to park illegally in areas where it enforces restrictions. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making or handling of this matter to justify investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman