The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb extension. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb extension.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) 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)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
I considered the Council’s Vehicle Cross Over Application Criteria - October 2021.
My assessment
Miss X applied for an extension to an existing dropped kerb. The Council refused her application because the property frontage does not meet the current published minimum depth criteria. It upheld its decision at appeal stage.
Miss X says the Council did not apply the criteria reasonably in her case. She says the size criteria was only short by 5% and most properties in the local area have crossovers. Miss X says the potential for the car overhanging the pavement was irrelevant as other motorists illegally park on the path in front of her property and her neighbours are frequently blocked in.
The Council’s current published Vehicle Cross Over Application Criteria sets out the criteria against which all applications are assessed. It states the minimum size criteria for granting of a dropped kerb is ‘at least 4.8m long between the back of the pavement or property boundary (the face of any wall, fence or hedge for example) and the front of your building and 2.4m minimum width.’
The guidance says crossovers were permitted historically which did not meet the current minimum size requirements. This led to potential safety issues with cars overhanging the pavement and undertaking manoeuvres across the pavement to access a hardstanding. To prevent this, it no longer permits crossovers where the minimum 4.8 m depth is not met. It says the existence of historic dropped kerbs, which do not meet the current criteria, cannot be accepted as mitigation.
Whilst I note Miss X is unhappy with the Council’s decision on her application there is no sign of fault by the Council here. It has considered and decided the application in line with the current eligibility criteria. We are not an appeal body and cannot question the merits of decisions where there is no sign of fault in the process by which they were reached. The criteria is published, clearly explained and applies to all applicants. Policies will change over time and the current size criteria is applied for safety reasons. The Council’s decision to refuse the application on the basis it does not meet the current criteria is one it is entitled to make.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council as it has considered and decided Miss X’s application in line with its current published criteria.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman