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 Ms X, disagrees with the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb. Other properties in her road have a dropped kerb and she needs one so she can charge an electric car.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the Council’s assessment of the application and the dropped kerb policy. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The policy says that for perpendicular parking the applicant’s drive must have a minimum depth of 4.8 metres. For parallel parking there must be a minimum width of 9.6 metres and 3.5 metres depth. The policy also says that the existence of other dropped kerbs does not set a precedence and every application is assessed on its own merits against the current rules.
Ms X applied for a dropped kerb. The Council measured the drive and found it has a depth of 3.5 metres and width of 7.1 metres. The Council refused the application because it does not meet the size requirements for either parking approach. The Council explained that the size requirements are to ensure vehicles do not overhang the pavement.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Ms X’s drive does not meet the size requirements. In addition, the existence of other dropped kerbs does not set a precedence and does not mean other applications will be approved if that would be contrary to the rules.
I understand why Ms X would like a dropped kerb but the Council’s 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 unless simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman