Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has treated him unfairly in refusing his application for a dropped kerb. Mr X says numerous properties on his road with similar property frontage sizes have dropped kerbs installed and so his application should also be agreed.

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 assessed and refused Mr X’s dropped kerb application. It explained his property frontage does not meet the minimum size criteria as set out in its current policy for footway crossings.
7. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision and provided additional information in support of his application. The Council considered the information Mr X provided but maintained its decision to refuse the application in line with the eligibility criteria set out in its current policy.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. The Council has considered and decided Mr X’s application in line with its current published policy and eligibility criteria. The presence of previously granted and installed dropped kerbs on the same road, and of similar dimensions to Mr X’s property, is not relevant to the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s application. Historically agreed and installed dropped kerbs agreed under previous policies may well not meet the current criteria. This does not mean the Council is at fault in refusing Mr X’s application under the current policy which has been in place since April 2023. Mr X’s application needs to meet the current criteria in order to succeed.
9. 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, as here, we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong even though Mr X disagrees with it.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr 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