Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council refused his application for a dropped kerb and failed to consider its discretion to depart from its policy. Mr X said his driveway is 20cm smaller than the allowed width in the Council’s policy. Mr X said other properties in the area with less space were granted approval.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Background

6. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb to enable an additional car to be parked on his driveway. The Council refused the application and explained the area of Mr X’s driveway he wanted access to via the dropped kerb did not meet the minimum dimensions in line with its policy.
7. Mr X complained to the Council. In summary, Mr X argued that the space required was only marginally below the Council’s specifications (20cm). He also said other driveways in the area were given approval with less space.
8. In its complaint response the Council explained its reasoning. It explained:
1. it considered Mr X’s current driveway had space for two cars;
2. the impact of granting the dropped kerb on parking provision in the area in general;
3. Mr X’s individual circumstances as opposed to the circumstances of his neighbours.

Analysis

9. 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. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
10. The Council considered Mr X’s individual circumstances as well as its discretion to depart from its policy. It decided not to grant permission for a dropped kerb. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making, and so we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman