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 dropped kerb. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb.
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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) 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 the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X applied to the Council for a dropped kerb to the front of his property.
The Council refused the application, in line with its policy, because it would require the loss of part of a grassed area to the front of Mr X’s property.
Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. He said there would be no loss of amenity as the area of grass that would need to be removed to allow his dropped kerb was very small and there were no trees or shrubs there. He said his neighbour’s application had been granted 2-3 years ago and this had required the removal of a much larger area of grass.
The Council considered Mr X‘s appeal but upheld its original decision.
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. Mr X’s application has been considered, and refused, in line with the Council’s dropped kerb policy which says permission for a dropped kerb will not be granted where any amenity feature, such as verges, landscaped, soiled, grassed and planted area would need to be removed or reduced in size. The decision to refuse Mr X’s application is one it is entitled to make.
The presence of a historically agreed and installed dropped kerb on a neighbouring property is not relevant to the Council’s decision on Mr X’s application as it was granted prior to the Council’s current policy. Policies will evolve over time and previously installed dropped kerbs may well not meet the current criteria and would not be agreed if they were requested now. Applicants need to meet the current criteria.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman