Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the delay in advising Mr X of reasons for refusing his dropped kerb application. The Council has apologised for the delay. It has offered to meet him to explore alternative ways of meeting his access needs. We consider further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused his request for a dropped kerb, but it has failed to respond to his complaint and delayed in telling him the reason for refusing his request.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council apologised to Mr X for the delay in advising him of its decision to refuse his dropped kerb application and the reasons for this.
6. The Council confirms its surveyor visited the site, took measurements and photographs. Mr X’s preferred location for the dropped kerb is next to an electric vehicle parking bay with charging equipment.
7. The highways team confirmed it would have to move the charging bay, and equipment to accommodate a dropped kerb. This would incur significant costs. The Council’s opinion is the increased costs cannot be justified in relation to the level of benefit it would provide to Mr X. It also confirms there is an existing dropped kerb between three and four metres from Mr X’s gate which he can already use.
8. The Council has asked to meet Mr X to explore alternative solutions that may improve access without the need for a new dropped kerb. It says this could include widening the gate opening, replacing the gate, or considering automation. It asked to arrange a joint visit with an Occupational Therapist and the surveyor to review these options with Mr X and identify what adjustments could best support his access needs. Mr X has not responded to this request.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• The Council has apologised for the delay in advising him of the reasons for refusing his request for a dropped kerb.
• It has explained the reasons for refusing his request for a dropped kerb.
• It has offered to meet Mr X to explore alternative ways of meeting his access needs.

We consider further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman