The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his dropped kerb application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
The complaint
Mr B complains the Council wrongly refused his application for a dropped kerb because of a highway tree outside his property. Mr B says the Council should approve his application and allow him to re-locate this tree.
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 B and information on the Council’s website about dropped kerb applications.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The information does not indicate the Council’s decision was affected by fault. The Council’s decision was in line with its Dropped Kerb Application Guidance. This clearly sets out the Council’s approach to applications where a highway tree is close to a property. It says the Council does not support the removal of highway trees to facilitate the instillation of a dropped kerb.
Mr B says the local planning authority granted planning permission for an off street parking area, which he has already constructed. But, this does not mean the Council was at fault for applying its own guidance to Mr B’s highways application.
So, we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman