The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to extend the complainant’s dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Could and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant would like.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council will not extend his dropped kerb to prevent people blocking his drive. He wants the Council to drop the remaining section of kerb for free.
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, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence, the policy and photographs. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.
My assessment
The dropped kerb policy says a crossover must not exceed 4.8 metres in width.
Mr X has a dropped kerb that extends the width of his property. His neighbour also has a dropped kerb which is joined to his neighbour’s dropped kerb on the other side. There is a small section of kerb, which has not been lowered, between Mr X’s dropped kerb and his neighbour’s dropped kerb. Mr X says people park adjacent to the non-dropped section and block his drive.
Mr X asked the Council to lower the non-dropped section to stop people parking and blocking his drive.
The Council refused his request because it would mean there was a continuous dropped kerb including his own, his neighbour’s and the neighbour on the other side. This would create a dropped kerb which exceeds the maximum width. The Council said there are many dropped kerbs in the street and it wants to preserve the existing kerbs to keep the distinction between the road and the path. The Council said Mr X can call the parking enforcement team if someone blocks his drive. The Council also said Mr X can apply for white advisory lines to discourage parking in front his drive. The Council says Mr X has not applied for white lines.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X’s dropped kerb already extends the full width of his property. The section of kerb he wants the Council to drop could not be used as a crossover because it is adjacent to a wall. The purpose of a dropped kerb is to allow access to a drive, not to prevent on-street parking. The Council decided not to lower the remaining section because it would create a dropped kerb which exceeds the maximum width of 4.8 metres. The Council’s decision is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. We could not ask the Council to lower this section of kerb as it would be contrary to the policy.
The problem is caused by inappropriate parking. The Council has explained Mr X can deal with this by calling the enforcement team or applying for white lines. Mr X does not like calling enforcement because people know he has reported them. However, this is the correct way to deal with blocked drives and the Council’s advice does not amount to fault.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman