Essex County Council (25 030 183)
Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 12 Jul 2026
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an application for a dropped kerb. This is because part of the complaint is late, there is not enough evidence the Council is at fault, and any injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation. We will not investigate part of the complaint as it is reasonable for the complainant to make a claim to the court, so the matter does not justify us investigating.
The complaint
- Mr X complains the Council refused his application for a dropped kerb in front of his property. He says the Council’s decision is unfair and its response was inconsistent. He says this has caused him financial loss and meant he cannot own an electric car due to lack of a charging point. Mr X also says the Council may be in breach of the Equalities Act 2010.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
- We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26B, as amended)
- The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
- 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, or
- any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Mr X applied to the Council for a dropped kerb in January 2026. The Council refused the application as the dropped kerb would interfere with a bus stop located outside Mr X’s property.
- Mr X said he would be willing to fund moving the bus stop. The Council investigated in 2022 whether it could move the bus stop. It relied on evidence from the investigation and confirmed it was not feasible to relocate the bus stop. This is a decision it was entitled to make and Mr X could have complained to us in 2022, so any complaint about it is late with no good reason for us to consider it now.
- The decision to refuse Mr X’s application for a dropped kerb was in line with the Council’s policy. There is not enough evidence the Council is at fault to warrant an investigation.
- Evidence online shows Mr X has off-street parking and access to a charging point for an electric vehicle at the back of his home, contrary to the injustice he claims. We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. There is not enough evidence of significant injustice here.
- Mr X says the Council may not have acted in line with the Equality Act 2010. We have no power to decide if a council has failed to meet its duties under the Act or has discriminated against someone. It would be reasonable for Mr X to make a discrimination claim in court.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because part of the complaint is late without good reason, there is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to justify an investigation, and it is reasonable for Mr X to make a claim to the court.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman