Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dropped kerb application because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has wrongly refused his application for a dropped kerb vehicle crossover, when it allowed a neighbour to have a dropped kerb.
2. Mr Y says this makes him feel he has not been treated fairly by the Council.

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))

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 Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y’s driveway is smaller than the minimum length of a driveway required under the Council’s vehicle crossover policy. Mr Y argues that his driveway is the same area as a neighbouring property’s, which has been able to have permission for a dropped kerb from the Council, where he has been refused. The Council has said that it decides each application on its own merits and that, having considered Mr Y’s application, his property did not meet the requirements to have a dropped kerb. Mr Y then approached us.
7. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
8. In this case, the Council has considered the individual application based on its own merits as outlined in its policy. It has followed its policy in rejecting the application due to the size of the driveway being too small to ensure that vehicle, which may not necessarily be Mr Y’s may overhang onto the highway if the dropped kerb were allowed. This is to protect public safety on the highway, including any pavement or footpath.
9. While a neighbouring property may have been able to get permission for a dropped kerb, it was for the Council to judge that application on its own merits, and this would not set a precedent for other applications. The Council has therefore considered the relevant points of Mr Y’s application and applied its policy to form a view, which was to reject the application. Consequently, as the Council has considered the application properly, there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify investigating. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman