Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council approving and installing a dropped kerb at Miss X’s property without identifying an existing traffic regulation order. This is because any injustice caused is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council approved and installed a dropped kerb at her property without identifying an existing traffic regulation order (TRO). She says she has been affected by this financially and emotionally. Miss X says because of the order, she does not have full access to her driveway.
2. Miss X wants the Council to:
• acknowledge the fault;
• either arrange or contribute towards the cost of amending the order;
• refund or contribute towards the costs already incurred; and
• review its processes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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 approved Miss X’s application for a dropped kerb, which was installed in 2020. Miss X says that, in March 2026, parking bay markings were reinstated outside her property. She says this restricted access to her driveway and affected her ability to sell her property.
7. The Council said it assesses the suitability of dropped kerb applications by carrying out a visual site inspection. It does not routinely check its records for TRO’s where restrictions are not visible on site. In this case, the relevant road markings had worn away before the inspection, so the Council did not identify the TRO. The Council said it was not responsible for maintaining those markings.
8. The Council’s failure to check for an existing TRO not apparent from the site inspection may indicate fault. However, parking restriction signs remained in place and there was no guarantee that the area outside Miss X’s property would remain clear at all times. The photographs of Miss X’s property also show that vehicles could park outside the property irrespective of whether the bay markings were visible. I therefore consider that any injustice caused to Miss X by the Council’s actions is limited and is not significant enough to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because any injustice caused is not significant enough to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman