Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council refused her application for a dropped kerb. There is insufficient remaining injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council did not approve her application for a dropped kerb. Instead, the Council approved a design which extended the dropped kerb in front of her neighbour’s property to enable Mrs X to access her driveway.
2. Mrs X complains a shared dropped kerb is not an acceptable design because her neighbour currently parks across the existing dropped kerb blocking access.
3. Mrs X also complains the Council did not consider its duties to disabled residents because a family member who lives at her property is disabled.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X applied to the Council for a dropped kerb outside her driveway. The Council approved an extension of the dropped kerb outside Mrs X’s neighbour’s house to create a shared dropped kerb which would be sufficient to enable Mrs X to have vehicular access her driveway.
8. Mrs X asked the Council’s dropped kerb appeals team to review the design because she said her neighbour often blocks access across the existing dropped kerb so a shared dropped kerb would not be a suitable solution. The Council reviewed the design but did not change the design or its decision.
9. Dropped kerbs are provided to allow a vehicle to cross the footway to access off-street hardstanding. When a resident applies for a dropped kerb, they are not applying to own it; they are applying for permission to cross the public footway to access their private hardstanding.
10. The Council explained to Mrs X that the approved design for the extended shared dropped kerb had been based on a professional engineering assessment, and the arrangement is workable and compliant with policy. The Council also noted the approved design maintained an on-street disabled advisory parking space, allowed off-street parking access to Mrs X’s property and avoided disadvantaging other highway users beyond what is necessary.
11. The Council said that it would write to Mrs X’s neighbour to explain that the extended dropped kerb is shared access and must not be obstructed or parked upon and is for access only. If, once the shared dropped kerb is completed, the neighbour blocks access, Mrs X will be able to contact the District Council to request enforcement action.
12. I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council has refused her application for a dropped kerb. There is insufficient remaining injustice to warrant an investigation. The Council approved a design for a shared dropped kerb which is in line with its policy, balances the needs of other highway users and will enable Mrs X to have vehicular access to her driveway. The Council considered the needs of Mrs X and her household, and other disabled drivers as the approved design retains space for the existing disabled advisory bay and allows Mrs X to park on her driveway. If, in future, the neighbour blocks access to the shared dropped kerb, Mrs X can contact the District Council as it is responsible for enforcement.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council refused her application for a dropped kerb. There is insufficient remaining injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman