a dropped kerb application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
The complaint
The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complains the Council has refused his application for a dropped kerb which would allow him to cross the pavement and park outside his home. He says the Council has refused the application as the frontage outside his property is less than the required 4.5 metres.
Mr B disputes the Council’s measurements, stating his property meets the minimum size requirements.
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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council refused Mr B’s application saying there was not enough frontage to enable the minimum highway access width of 4.5 metres or 5 metres of standard kerb.
Following Mr B’s complaint an Officer visited Mr B’s property. It confirmed that another Authority owns part of the land needed to build the dropped kerb. It further confirmed the other Authority refuses to allow Mr B to use its land for part of the dropped kerb.
Without permission from the other Authority, the Council cannot grant permission for Mr B to have a dropped kerb.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman