The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject Mr X’s application for a dropped kerb extension. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X Complained about the Council’s rejection of his application to extend a joint dropped kerb access to allow him extra parking on his driveway. He says the area would benefit from additional space if his cars were taken off the street.
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) We investigate 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 continue 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), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X applied to the Council for an extension to an existing dropped kerb which serves as a vehicle crossing for his own and his neighbour’s property. The Council rejected the application because it does not meet its policy which requires that joint crossings do not exceed 5.6 metres. It told him that the existing historical dropped kerb already exceeds the limit and it would not approve a further loss of parking. Although his vehicle may be accommodated by the extension, an overall loss of space would occur as he has no designated space on the highway.
The Ombudsman may not question the merits of decisions which have been made in a proper manner. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions. In this case the Council consider the application and Mr X’s request to reconsider it. The application does not meet the published requirements for a double dropped kerb and it was rejected on this basis.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject Mr X’s application for a dropped kerb extension. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman