Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her dropped kerb application because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate the delay in making the decision because the injustice caused is not significant enough. We will not investigate the Council’s complaints and appeals handling because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. refused her application for a dropped kerb;
2. took 14 weeks to make its decision, which is outside its published timescale of 6-8 weeks; and
3. failed to handle her appeal and complaint properly.
2. Mrs X said the matter caused her distress, frustration and uncertainty.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Decision to refuse application for a dropped kerb

6. The Council considered Mrs X’s application. It found the application did not meet its published criteria for a dropped kerb. The difference between the stated policy and the dimensions of the proposed driveway are not marginal.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
8. The Council properly considered the application but determined the criteria in its policy were not met. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
9. Delay in making the decision
10. Mrs X said there was a delay of approximately six weeks above the Council’s published timescale.
11. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means 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. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
12. A delay of six weeks is not a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
13. Complaint and appeals handling
14. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures if we decide not to investigate the substantive issue. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman