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 and that it refused her application without attending her property.

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. I also considered the Council’s criteria for assessing dropped crossing applications which is published on its website.
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 because her property frontage does not meet the minimum size requirements for one to be installed. Its published criteria for dropped kerb applications states the proposed parking space needs to be at least 5 metres in depth. Miss X’s property frontage is only 3.5 metres deep and so does not meet the minimum size requirements. It also refused it because the land in front of Miss X’s property is not highways land, it is privately owned. The Council’s application guidance states that if you do not own the land between your property and the highway the applicant will need the permission of the landowner before submitting their application to the Council.
7. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council here. It has considered and decided Miss X’s application in line with the published eligibility criteria; it has clearly explained the reasons for its decision and why it did not meet the eligibility criteria.
8. 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

9. 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