The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her 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 Ms X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her 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 an organisation’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.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
I considered the Council’s current Residential Dropped Kerbs Terms and Conditions which are published on its website.
My assessment
Miss X applied for a dropped kerb. The Council refused her application because the proposed access point of the dropped kerb would be within a parking bay.
The Council’s current dropped kerbs terms and conditions state: ‘If there is a parking bay/lay-by at the proposed access point the application will be refused. This is because a vehicle accessing the road between parked vehicles will encounter visibility issues.’
Ms X appealed the Council’s decision. She said most of the properties on the road already have dropped kerbs; her neighbour is accessing his driveway without a dropped kerb in place and due to limited parking on the road she often has to park on the pavement.
The Council upheld its decision and explained its reasons in line with the terms and conditions.
Ms X says the Council is discriminating against her as most of the other properties have dropped kerbs but she is being denied one. She would like to buy an electric car but says she cannot do so without a dropped kerb.
Whilst I acknowledge Ms X is unhappy with the Council’s decision, I can see no sign of fault in how it considered and decided her application. It has done so in line with the current published criteria. We are not an appeal body and we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decisions where there is no sign of fault in the process by which they were reached. The presence of historic dropped kerbs on the road is not relevant to the Council’s decision on this application where they have been in place for some time, agreed under previous criteria and would likely not be granted under the current criteria. Policies will change over time for many reasons, including safety issues. This is highlighted in the Council’s terms and conditions which state that older historic dropped kerbs do not set a precedent: ‘we cannot take into account dropped kerbs that are already in existence as we normally do not know the circumstances under which they were built’.
I note Miss X’s comment about being unable to buy an electric car, however this is not caused by any fault by the Council.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council as it has considered and decided her dropped kerb application in line with its current published criteria.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman