this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a dropped kerb and vehicle crossing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mrs X complained about the Council’s refusal of her application for a dropped kerb and vehicle crossing at her home. She says she needs the access for her mother who is disabled.
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) 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s policy relating to vehicle access.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs X applied to the Council in 2021 for a dropped kerb and vehicle access. She was told that her application was refused because it would involve the loss of a designated parking space outside her home which is within a controlled parking zone (CPZ). This is contrary to the Council’s policy. She says she was unaware of the policy when she purchased her home and that she was misled by estate agents into believing off-street parking could be added.
The Council says its conditions for vehicle crossings have been on its website for several years and the onus is on the prospective buyer to consider these before purchasing.
Mrs X appealed and told the Council that although there is a disabled bay nearby, it is not exclusive and is often in use. Her mother is disabled and she wants to be able to park within her property boundary to minimise movement. She provided medical evidence to confirm her mother’s disability. The Council told her it would not make an exception because the evidence indicates that her mother is not resident at the address and this is a requirement for exceptions on disabled grounds.
When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a dropped kerb and vehicle crossing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman