Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dropped kerb extension application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains the Council has wrongly refused her application to extend a dropped kerb as it has not used its discretion to allow the extension. She feels the Council has not explained its reasons for the refusal.
2. Mrs Y says the current size of the dropped kerb causes her difficulty in accessing the property and makes her vehicle’s movements less controlled.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mrs Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs Y applied to extend a dropped kerb so it would run in front of her property, rather than in front of the gap between her house and her neighbour’s. The Council refused the property frontage was less than five metres deep, which was a requirement under its policy.
6. Mrs Y used a representative to challenge the decision. The representative raised several points including other properties having short drives and parking the vehicle at a 90-degree angle. The Council responded, explaining the other drives did not create a precedent, and it had made the decision in line with current criteria. It also explained that there was not enough space to allow a vehicle to turn around at 90-degree angles to park on the driveway and that images showed that vehicles were overhanging the footpath when parked at the property. Consequently, the criteria for the extension to the dropped kerb had not been met and the application had been refused.
7. 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.
8. While Mrs Y and her representative may dislike the decision made, the Council considered the application in line with its policy, taking into account relevant criteria, such as the depth of the frontage. It was also able to explain its decision and how it had considered the issues raised. It therefore made the decision properly so there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman