Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb. 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 to the front of her property. Miss X says several other properties on the street have dropped kerbs including one which was recently agreed whilst her application was refused. Miss X also says the Council did not clearly explain the process and its decision.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council refused Miss X’s application for a dropped kerb to the front of her property. It explained it was refused because her property frontage does not meet the current minimum size criteria for a dropped kerb to be installed as set out in its published eligibility criteria. It noted Miss X says she only has a small car, but it explained this is not relevant to its decision.
7. It acknowledged some of its previous communication with Miss X was not clear and it apologised for this. It confirmed that the nearby property which recently had its application agreed did meet the eligibility criteria.
8. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. It has assessed, decided and refused Miss X’s application in line with the current published requirements for installation of a dropped kerb. Miss X’s property frontage does not meet the published minimum size requirements. It has also explained why a recent nearby application succeeded as it met the criteria where Miss X’s did not.
9. The presence of other previously agreed and installed dropped kerbs on the street is not relevant to Miss X’s application as the eligibility criteria will evolve and change over time. Many existing dropped kerbs may well not meet the current eligibility criteria and so would not be agreed if they were applied for under the current criteria. This does not mean Miss X’s application should succeed. What it relevant is whether Miss X’s application has been assessed and decided against the current criteria.
10. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council’s decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes it followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong even though Miss X disagrees with it.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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