The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a second dropped kerb. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council refused his application for a second dropped kerb at his property. He says that as a result he will be unable to buy electric cars as he will not be able to charge them.
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 or may decide not to continue with 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, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X has two parking spaces, one at the front and one at the side of his property. He has an existing dropped kerb positioned directly in front of the parking space to the side of his property but he would like better access to the parking space at the front of his property so he applied to the Council for a second dropped kerb.
The Council refused Mr X’s application on the grounds it did not meet its criteria. This is because it only allows one dropped kerb per property and it was concerned about the impact of a second on parking in the area.
The Council’s decision follows its policy and I have not seen any evidence of fault in the way it was reached. It also does not cause Mr X significant injustice. This is because the parking spaces at the front and side of Mr X’s property area accessible through the existing dropped kerb and the Council has explained Mr X may improve access through removal of an existing boundary wall, rather than needing to install a second dropped kerb.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show the Council’s decision caused Mr X significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman