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 Mrs X, disagrees with the Council’s decision to refuse her dropped kerb application. She has raised many points as to why she thinks the Council should grant consent and she wants the Council to reconsider her application in relation to these points.
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 Mrs X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence, the policy, and a photograph provided by the Council confirming the depth of the front garden. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mrs X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
The dropped kerb policy says there must be a minimum parking space of 4.8 metres to allow vehicles to park straight on the property with no overhanging. Parking parallel to the road is not permitted.
Mrs X applied for a dropped kerb. The Council refused the application because the depth of the proposed parking space is 3.8 metres. I have seen a photograph which confirms the distance.
There are many reasons why Mrs X disagrees with the decision. These include that other houses, with the same property dimensions, have dropped kerbs; that there is a depth of 4.8 metres if measured from the front door; and a dropped kerb would help resolve parking and road safety issues.
In response to her complaint the Council confirmed it will not give permission when the depth requirement is not met. It said other properties may have been granted permission, in error, in the past but it can only assess new applications against the current rules. It said it will not compromise on the depth rule and said it will not grant consent if a vehicle has to use parallel parking or park in front of the door.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The policy says the parking space must have a minimum depth of 4.8 metres. Mrs X’s proposed driveway is a metre short of this requirement so there is nothing to suggest fault in the Council’s decision to reject the application. Mrs X may disagree with the policy and think parallel parking should be permitted or that the Council should include the area in front of the front door; but that disagreement is not an indication of fault and the Council is only required to assess an application in relation to the current policy.
We do not act as appeal body. We do not assess dropped kerb applications and cannot tell the Council to grant permission or reconsider the application. We also do not make Council policy. If Mrs X thinks the Council should take the space in front of a door into consideration, or it should consider other dropped kerbs in the street as grounds to give consent, then these are issues she would need to raise with the Council and ask for the policy to be changed. But, it would be for the Council to change the policy, not us.
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