Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb without properly considering her disability related needs or medical evidence. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb. She says the Council refused her application without properly considering her disability related needs and medical evidence, in breach of the Equality Act 2010. Miss X says her car fits safely on her property frontage as does a larger car. She has autism and anxiety and having a dropped kerb would provide predictable, accessible parking which would reduce her stress.

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 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.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X applied to the Council for a dropped kerb to the front of her property.
8. The Council refused Miss X’s application because her property frontage does not meet the minimum size criteria set out in its current guidelines.
9. Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her application and asked it to consider agreeing her application as a reasonable adjustment. Miss X provided evidence to show: her car, or a larger car, could fit on the property frontage; other properties nearby had dropped kerbs with smaller frontages; information about local parking pressures and a supporting letter from her GP.
10. The Council considered the information and evidence Miss X provided but maintained its decision to refuse her application. It declined the request to agree the application outside of the current guidelines as a reasonable adjustment. It explained the current minimum size criteria is in place to ensure the safety of all highway users including those with protected characteristics and that whilst it had carefully considered her request it would not agree it as a reasonable adjustment on safety grounds.
11. The Council also explained that the presence of previously agreed and installed dropped kerbs locally which do not meet the current guidelines are not relevant to its consideration of new applications. It also confirmed that vehicle size is not a relevant factor in its assessment of applications. It suggested the most suitable option, whilst it may not fully meet Miss X’s needs, would be for her to consider applying for a disabled parking bay to be installed outside her property. Miss X says this is not a suitable or reasonable option as it would not guarantee her a parking space if a blue badge holder parked there and it would highlight her disability to her neighbours.
12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in its consideration of Miss X’s application to warrant an investigation by this office. The Council considered and decided Miss X’s application in line with the current published guidelines. It then considered Miss X’s request to agree the application outside of the guidelines as a reasonable adjustment. It carefully considered the information Miss X provided in her request and then clearly explained its reason for not agreeing the request in this case. It is a decision it is entitled to make.
13. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. The Council has considered the request and clearly explained its reason for not agreeing to the requested adjustment. We are 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 process it followed to make its decision. If, as here, we decide there was no sign of fault in how it made its decision 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 insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman