The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a dropped kerb and the Council’s policy. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because we could not achieve the outcome the complainant wants.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb. He also complains about the policy. He wants the Council to review and change the policy.
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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. I also considered the policy and looked at photographs of Mr X’s house and proposed site for the dropped kerb (from streetview). I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
The dropped kerb policy says the Council will assess applications based on the current policy and the presence of existing dropped kerbs does not mean a new application will be approved. The policy says an application will be refused if construction would involve the removal of at least two metres of grass verge.
Mr X applied for a dropped kerb. He would like to buy an electric car and needs a dropped kerb so he can park near his house to charge the car. The Council refused the application because it would involve the removal of more than two metres of grass verge.
In response to his complaint the Council referred to the policy and said the existing dropped kerbs in his road were approved under previous policies. It said the decision to refuse permission is correct because of the grass verge. It also said consent could have been refused due to proximity to a junction. The Council said it is due to review the policy in 2023 and it will consider Mr X’s comments as part of the review.
Mr X disagrees with the decision and the policy. He wants to get an electric car and says the policy fails to embrace the future. Mr X wants the Council to review the policy so as to facilitate car charging and ensure there are no arbitrary restrictions on having a dropped kerb.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The image I seen shows a dropped kerb at this location would involve the removal of at least two metres of grass verge. The decision reflects the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. In addition, the Council has correctly explained that new applications are only assessed against the current policy and the presence of existing dropped kerbs does not mean a new application will be approved.
In addition, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X would like in relation to changes to the policy. The Council will review the policy next year and consider Mr X’s points. It will be for the Council, not us, to decide whether to make any changes to the policy, what those changes should be, and whether any restrictions will remain. We do not set Council policy as that is the role of elected members. Mr X could raise any points he wants to make with his local councillors.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because we could not achieve the outcome Mr X hopes for.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman