The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: the Council was not at fault for refusing to pay for a dropped kerb for Mr B. It properly considered his needs, so we cannot question its decision.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Miss C, complains on behalf of her son, who is an adult with autism. I refer to him as Mr B.
Miss C asked the Council to pay for a dropped kerb outside her home. She said Mr B needed this because his condition causes him great anxiety, which prevents his participation in daily activities. She says uncertainty over parking increases this anxiety.
Miss C complains that the Council has refused to pay for the dropped kerb, saying Mr B does not need it. She says the Council failed to properly take his condition into account, and failed to recognise a letter from his occupational therapist which supported her application.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Miss C and the Council. Both parties had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
What should have happened?
Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 gives councils the power to permit residential vehicle crossovers (otherwise known as dropped kerbs).
Councils also have the power to charge people for the installation of dropped kerbs.
What happened?
In September 2020 Miss C asked the Council to pay for a dropped kerb for Mr B. The Council told her that, as Mr B had no mobility issues, he would have to pay for it himself.
Miss C told the Council it could not make a decision on her application without an assessment of Mr B’s needs, because his condition was unrelated to mobility. She submitted a complaint, but the Council did not change its position.
In January 2021 Miss C contacted the Council again, saying Mr B’s condition – while unrelated to mobility – caused him difficulties which were significant enough to make him eligible for a disabled parking badge. She repeated her view that the Council should have assessed Mr B’s needs before refusing to pay for a dropped kerb.
This time, the Council decided it would, in fact, assess Mr B’s needs before making a decision. The assessment was allocated to an occupational therapist, who conducted a home visit in early March.
The occupational therapist got information from Mr B’s college, which said it provided minimal support to Mr B. He also got information from a different occupational therapist who had previously worked with Mr B: this therapist said Mr B would benefit from off-street parking, as not knowing where to park might increase his anxiety.
The assessment was completed at the end of March. It recommended the Council consider the dropped kerb, as the unpredictable parking availability near Mr B’s home was causing him stress. It noted that Mr B needed less support when his circumstances were predictable (as in college). It said anxiety about parking was considered to be his biggest obstacle to independence when he passed his driving test (which is why he had a disabled parking badge).
The assessment was considered by the Council and, on 9 April, it made its decision. Its records say: … the need for Off street parking does not appear essential. [Mr B] is presently able to access the community ([Miss C] driving) and college (via taxi) … evidencing [Mr B] being able to walk unaided from the house to a taxi and taxi to college/class … [Mr B’s] 1:1 support at college [is] minimal due to his improvements in accessing college without exhibiting behaviours that challenge.
The Council wrote to Miss C in April and said it was refusing her request. It said it had “taken into account [Mr B’s] sensory issues when making this decision”.
After Miss C queried the Council’s reasoning, it said Mr B: could get to and from a taxi unaided; needed little 1:1 support in college; and was receiving independence and travel training which would lead to improvements in his anxiety coping mechanisms.
Miss C says the Council failed to properly take account of Mr B’s needs, and says he does not receive travel training as he cannot use public transport.
My findings
It is not my role to decide whether the Council should pay for Mr B’s dropped kerb. Nor can I decide how serious his condition is. What I must decide is whether the Council acted properly in refusing to pay for the dropped kerb, and whether its decision-making was consistent with the evidence at hand.
The Council considered information about Mr B’s condition from his college, Miss C, and another health professional. It considered information about his mobility, his independence, and his anxiety. It considered information which supported Miss C’s application as well as information which was less supportive. And it decided not to pay for a dropped kerb.
I can see no significant issue with how the Council gained and considered the available evidence, and there is no law or guidance which meant it had to agree Miss C’s application. It made its decision and justified it.
Although it is possible that Miss C’s application could have been dealt with sooner (if the Council had agreed to do an assessment when she first asked), and the Council’s decision could have been communicated to her more clearly (as it required clarification), neither of these things made a difference to the overall outcome.
The same is true of the Council’s claim that Mr B received travel training. Miss C disputes this, and I cannot find where the Council got this information. But it is not listed as a reason in the Council’s decision record of 9 April 2021, so I do not consider it to be something which was decisive to the outcome.
This means I have found that the Council was not responsible for any fault leading to injustice in Mr B’s case.
As I have found no fault in how the Council made its decision, I cannot question the decision itself, so I have completed my investigation.
Final decision
The Council was not at fault for refusing to pay for a dropped kerb for Mr B. It properly considered his needs, so I cannot question its decision.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman