The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing the complainant’s application for a dropped kerb. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision on the application.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, is unhappy his application for a dropped kerb was refused due to the inadequate depth of his driveway, as he says his neighbours’ applications have been approved despite their driveways having the same dimensions.
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) In that regard, we cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
I also considered our Assessment Code, and the Council’s ‘Vehicle Crossing: Guidance and Self-Assessment’ document.
My assessment
Mr X’s application was refused in accordance with the Council’s current dropped kerb policy, as his driveway does not meet the required 4.8m depth. I also note the Council’s policy says: “The policy of the Highway Authority in relation to minimum depths has changed over time. This may mean that properties in your road have a vehicle access crossing that does not comply with the above criteria and appears in all respects to be very similar to your own proposals. Nevertheless, you will need to comply with the standards set out above and the fact that someone else may have a shorter parking space will not be taken into account when assessing your proposals.”
and, “An appeal will not be considered due to parking conditions in your area or where you feel that an access that has already been built in your road or elsewhere does not comply with the current criteria for approval and should not have been approved. The presence of other historic substandard accesses cannot be accepted as mitigation.”
So, irrespective of the Council’s decisions on other applications, I am satisfied there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way Mr X’s own application was determined to justify the Ombudsman investigating the matter.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided his dropped kerb application.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman