The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to approve a dropped kerb application. He says he has been treated unfairly because other properties, with a similar size frontage, have been granted consent. He 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence, the dropped kerb policies, and information about the other household (which cannot be shared with Mr X). I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.
My assessment
The current dropped kerb policy was approved in February 2019. It says a dropped kerb will only be approved if the front garden has a minimum depth of 4.80 metres. The previous policy had a depth requirement of 4.57 metres and individual households could apply for a short frontage agreement. The current policy does not permit short frontage agreements.
Mr X applied for a dropped kerb in August 2021. The Council refused the application because his driveway is 4.1 metres deep. Mr X complained. He said that many properties in the area have a dropped kerbs that do not meet the depth requirement.
The Council explained that applications are assessed against the current policy and existing dropped kerbs will have been approved under previous policies. It explained why two properties Mr X had referred to were approved. It said it had refused another application in July 2021 because it did not meet the depth requirement.
Mr X disagrees with the response. In his complaint to us he referred to property B. He says property B has a similar sized driveway and although the resident applied under the old rules, the application was put on hold and the dropped kerb was not built under 2022. Mr X says he has been treated unfairly, his property has been devalued, and the decision stops him having an electric car.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X’s front garden does not meet the current depth requirement and applications are only assessed against the current policy. The Council’s decision is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. We are not an appeal body and cannot intervene because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.
I asked the Council about the application for property B. I cannot share any information with Mr X because it is confidential to the residents of property B. But, I can confirm the Council correctly decided the application for property B and Mr X has not been treated unfairly. The Council assessed both applications in accordance with the policy in force at the time.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman