Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Mrs X’s application for a dropped Kerb. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council denied her appeal to have a dropped kerb installed at her home. She says the reasons given by the Council are not consistent with an application historically approved to a neighbouring property. She says the Council used the distance to a junction as a reason the application was refused, but it is not in the guidance. Mrs X wants the Council to review her application in line with previously approved applications and if it does not change its decision, she wants it to refund her fees.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council explained to Mrs X an officer had visited the site and carried out an assessment. It identified the proposed dropped kerb was within 1 metre of a telecoms pole and less than 10 metres away from a busy junction. The Council rejected Mrs X’s application for these reasons, as outlined in its guidance.
7. Mrs X complained her neighbour in a similar property had their application for a dropped kerb approved in the past. The Council’s guidance stipulates that local historic approvals are not a justification for an appeal.
8. 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, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. In making its decision not to approve Mrs X’s application, the Council took account of the relevant guidance and assessments its officers completed. Its decision to refuse Mrs X’s application was in line with its guidance. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman