The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb.
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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) 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)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Council’s current Vehicle Cross Over (VCO) Application Criteria (October 2021) which is published on the Council’s website.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb at the front of his property. The Council refused the application because there is a parking layby in front of his property.
The Council’s current Vehicle Cross Over Application Criteria (October 2021) states: ‘WSCC do not permit the construction of vehicle accesses in parking laybys. This is to ensure that existing designated residents and visitor parking is maintained for all on a first come first served basis.’
The Council says applications are assessed against the current criteria. The criteria is regularly reviewed and subject to change to ensure it remains fit for purpose and aligns with any legislative changes which occur between reviews.
Mr X says other properties on his street have dropped kerbs and some of these are also in front of parking laybys. He would also like to be able to purchase and charge an electric car but cannot currently do so without a dropped kerb.
Whilst I acknowledge Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision I can see no sign of fault in how it considered his application. It has been decided in line with the current published criteria which was last updated in October 2021. The presence of dropped kerbs on other properties nearby is not a sign of fault where they have been in place for some time and agreed under previous criteria. Policies will evolve and change over time for many reasons. This is also highlighted in the Council’s Application Criteria which states ‘Local historic VCOs will not be considered in your application and will also not be considered justification in any appeal.’
Whilst I note Mr X would like to be able to purchase and charge an electric vehicle his inability to do so at present is not due to any fault by the Council. The Council has told Mr X about the planned provision of charging points in his area and has invited him to log his interest in having a charging point close to his home.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council as it has considered and decided Mr X’s dropped kerb application in line with the current published criteria.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman