The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her dropped kerb application. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her dropped kerb application.
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, 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)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (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 Vehicle Crossover Policy which is published on its website.
My assessment
Miss X applied for a dropped kerb. The Council refused her application because her property frontage, at 4.5 metres, does not meet the current published minimum depth criteria of 4.8 metres. The Council explained this minimum size requirement is in place to ensure vehicles are parked without overhanging the footway and without unnecessary vehicle manoeuvres which could cause safety issues for pedestrians. The policy clearly states that applications which do not meet the minimum size required will not be agreed.
Miss X says there is enough space on her property frontage for her to be able to park her car and other properties on her road have dropped kerbs. She considers the Council’s policy change has been made in order to increase revenue from parking permits.
The presence of historically granted dropped kerbs in nearby properties is not a sign of fault by the Council as policies will change over time for many reasons including improved safety considerations. Whilst Miss X’s application may possibly have been granted under previous policies it must meet the current published criteria in order to be granted now.
Whilst I acknowledge Miss X is unhappy with the Council’s decision I can see no sign of fault by the Council as it has considered and decided her application in line with the current eligibility criteria. We are not an appeal body and we cannot question the merits of decisions the Council makes where there is no sign of fault in how the decision was reached.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is no sigh of fault by the Council as it has considered and decided her dropped kerb application in line with the current eligibility criteria.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman