Source · LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman)

London Borough of Redbridge

LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Other Reference 21-012-235 Sector Transport And Highways Category Other Decided 13 January 2022

View Redbridge Council scorecard

Full decision

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dropped kerb because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council wrongly approved a dropped kerb application in 2019 and, having corrected that decision, will not give consent for a dropped kerb in the correct location. Mr X wants the Council to approve his application.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

How I considered this complaint

I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes photographs of Mr X’s house and information about the dimensions of his drive. I considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

My assessment

In 2019 Mr X applied to extend his dropped kerb. He already has a dropped kerb which gives access to a garage. The Council approved and built the extended dropped kerb. The Council then realised it should not have approved the application because the location did not meet the rules. The Council gave Mr X a refund and removed the extended dropped kerb.

Mr X reapplied. The Council assessed the application for the correct location but decided it did not meet the rules. For parallel parking, which applies to Mr X’s application, the drive must be at least 2.4 metres deep and 5.5 metres wide. The Council measured Mr X’s drive and found it is 1.6 metres deep and 5.2 metres wide.

I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. I appreciate it would be frustrating to have a dropped kerb built and then removed. However, the location did not meet the rules and Mr X received a refund. This error does not mean Mr X can have a dropped kerb which would be contrary to the rules and it does not represent an injustice requiring an investigation.

I also will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council refused the second application because Mr X’s drive does not meet the minimum size requirements for either right angle parking or parallel parking. The Council’s decision to refuse the application is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.

We are not an appeal body and we cannot ask a council to approve an application which would be contrary to the policy.

Final decision

I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

View original on LGO (Local Governme… website

Other decisions involving London Borough of Redbridge

Reference Date Summary Outcome
25-028-046 Other
25-018-529 Other
25-015-877 Other
25-001-413 Other
25-002-357 Upheld
View all decisions for this organisation