The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s 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 Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb. He says other properties of a similar size have dropped kerbs. He also says the family need a dropped kerb for medical reasons. Mr X wants the Council to approve his application.
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 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), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the correspondence about his application, the dropped kerb policy and confidential information about other households who made a successful application. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X applied for a dropped kerb. Two officers inspected the site and took measurements; they found this driveway has a depth of 4.6 metres. The Council refused the application because the policy says there must be a minimum depth of 4.8 metres for perpendicular parking. The Council could not approve an application for parallel parking because that requires a minimum width of 6 metres and Mr X’s driveway does not meet this rule.
Mr X raised many challenges to the decision including family circumstances for needing a dropped kerb, that his car would not cause an obstruction, and his hope to buy an electric car. Mr X also referred to two properties which he says received consent for a dropped kerb, after his was refused, where they have similar property dimensions. The Council considered Mr X’s points but repeated that he is ineligible for a dropped kerb because his property does not meet the depth requirements.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council assesses applications against the current dropped kerb policy. The policy says there must be a minimum depth of 4.8 metres. Mr X’s drive does not meet this requirement so there is no suggestion of fault in refusing the application.
I have checked the two properties Mr X queried with the Council. Due to confidentiality I cannot disclose any information to Mr X but I have checked the applications and I can confirm they were correctly assessed in relation to the policy.
Mr X has explained why he would like a dropped kerb but none of his reasons mean the Council can approve an application which does not meet the size requirements. It is also the case that the Council cannot approve an application simply because there are existing dropped kerbs in the area. The Council can only assess an application against the current criteria and this is what the Council has done.
We are not an appeal body and we have no power to overturn the decision. We can only intervene if there is fault in the way the council makes a decision and, in this case, there is no indication of fault.
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