The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application to extend the complainant’s dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision to refuse his application to extend his dropped kerb. He says the Council ignored the points he made, and its suggestions are not safe or practicable. He wants the Council to provide an acceptable solution.
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)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the correspondence about the application, the dropped kerb guidance, and photographs of the site. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
The dropped kerb policy says the Council will not grant permission for a dropped kerb if a grass verge would need to be removed or reduced in size. The policy also says the Council may approve or reject an application or propose alternative works.
Mr X applied to extend his dropped kerb. In one document he explained he has to drive over the grass, where there is no dropped kerb, to access his drive.
The Council visited and assessed the application. It refused the application because it would involve a reduction in the size of the grass verge. The Council also said Mr X does not have consent to drive over the grass verge because there is no dropped kerb at that location. As a compromise the Council offered to give consent for the removal of a small area of grass. In response Mr X said this would not be sufficient to meet his parking requirements and he again asked for the Council to approve the application. The Council said it had exercised discretion to allow a small reduction in the verge but would not offer anything else.
Mr X disagrees with the decision and has explained why he needs the Council to grant consent for an extended dropped kerb. Mr X also complains of delayed responses.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The decision reflects the guidance because an extension of the dropped kerb would involve the loss of grass verge; the decision is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. We do not act as an appeal body and we cannot intervene simply because the Council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.
Mr X has explained why he needs the extension and has also explained why he disagrees with the points made by the Council; but it is not our role to tell the Council it must grant consent or agree to any proposal from Mr X. The Council has already done more than we would suggest by offering to allow the removal of a small area of grass.
There were some delays by the Council in responding to Mr X. I acknowledge delays are frustrating but it does not require an investigation, especially as the final response did not lead to the Council approving the dropped kerb extension.
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