The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council approving an application for a dropped kerb and then reversing the decision. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, says the Council approved her dropped kerb application but then reversed the decision. She says she thought she had consent so paid for paving for the front garden. She disagrees with the refusal decision and wants compensation for the paving.
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 Mrs X and the Council. This includes the application, policy and photographs taken during the site inspection. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mrs X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
The policy says the Council will not permit the construction of dropped kerbs in parking laybys.
Mrs X applied for a dropped kerb. An officer visited the site on 16 May. He took photographs which show the layby and that Mrs X’s front garden had been dug up; the photographs include an advertising sign for paving work.
There is a parking layby outside Mrs X’s house. The officer thought this would not be a problem so he rang Mrs X on 16 May and left a message saying the application had been approved. But, when the application was checked by a manager, he decided the application could not be accepted because dropped kerbs are not allowed where there are existing laybys or parking spaces. The Council wrote to Mrs X on 31 May to refuse the application.
Mrs X appealed. The Council confirmed its decision to reject the application because it is contrary to the policy. It apologised because the officer initially gave the wrong decision and said he had been reminded of the policy. The Council said the photograph taken during the site visit suggested work to lay paving had already started.
I will not start an investigation for the following reasons. The Council initially made a mistake and wrongly approved the application. But, this error was corrected within about two weeks. The photographic evidence strongly suggests Mrs X had commissioned the paving works before getting the phone call approving the application. On this basis there is insufficient evidence that the error caused an injustice requiring compensation or an investigation.
In addition, the decision to overturn the initial approval and refuse the application is consistent with the policy. Mrs X says the layby cannot be used for parking because of the existence of other dropped kerbs. But the photographs show space for parking outside Mrs X’s home which would be lost if she had a dropped kerb. Further, the Council confirmed to me that this part of the layby offers parking for two vehicles which would be lost if Mrs X had a dropped kerb. This means there is insufficient evidence of fault in relation to this part of the complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman