The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant cannot have a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision that he cannot have a dropped kerb. He says the Council has not provided any data to back-up its reasons for the refusal and has not considered his alternative suggestions. Mr X wants a crossover so he 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 Mr X and the Council. This includes email correspondence about the applications, photographs of the site and the policy. I considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.
My assessment
The policy says the Council will consider road safety issues when considering a dropped kerb application. This includes the proximity of the site to junctions. The policy says the Council will usually refuse an application when the dropped kerb would lead directly onto a junction. The policy says a tree officer will assess any application when there is a nearby tree.
Mr X applied for a dropped kerb in 2018. The Council refused the application. In 2020 Mr X said he was planning to reapply. The Council discouraged him from making another application as it was unlikely to be successful.
Mr X re-applied. The Council rejected the application on several grounds including that the dropped kerb would lead directly onto a junction and the presence of a tree. The Council confirmed a tree officer had assessed the application and a highways officer had determined that the application could not be approved on road safety grounds. The Council accepted there may be other dropped kerbs which were constructed under previous rules which do not meet the current rules.
Mr X disagrees with the decision. He says the Council has not demonstrated there would be any road safety issues and there are several crossovers in the area which lead onto a junction.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The photographs show the dropped kerb would lead directly onto a junction. And, there is a tree which could not be accommodated within the protected root area as calculated by the tree officer. The Council’s decision is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.
In addition, the Council is required to follow the policy but is not required to provide evidence to demonstrate specific road safety issues. It is not fault for a council to follow the professional advice of a tree officer and a highways officer.
We are not an appeal body and we cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with. We also could not ask a council to grant consent when that would be contrary to the policy.
Final decision
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman