The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her husband about the way the Council handled his application for an extended dropped kerb. Mrs X said this caused unnecessary distress and frustration, and impacted her husband’s physical and mental health. We do not find the Council at fault.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs X, complained on behalf of her husband, Mr X, about the way the Council handled his application for an extended dropped kerb. Specifically, Mrs X complained that: the Council unreasonably refused permission for an extended dropped kerb; the Council’s regulations are unfair compared to other councils; and, the Council contradicted itself.
Mrs X said this caused unnecessary distress and frustration. She said it has impacted Mr X’s physical and mental health. She said the home does not meet Mr X’s needs.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended) The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
Mr X has given written consent for Mrs X to represent this complaint on his behalf. I therefore consider Mrs X is a suitable person to represent this complaint on Mr X’s behalf.
I considered the information and documents provided by Mrs X and the Council. I spoke to Mrs X about the complaint. Mrs X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
What should have happened The Council has a policy which sets out how it assesses and approves applications for dropped kerbs for vehicle access. The Council’s standard dropped kerb access is four flush kerbs and two transition kerbs. The policy says it will consider requests for wider access, but these may not always be granted.
The Council has an information pack, available for all applicants before applying for a dropped kerb. It says applications for spaces less than 5.5 metres long and 2.4 metres wide may not be approved.
The policy says accesses should emerge onto the highway at 90 degrees, or as close as possible to this angle - not parallel to the property.
The policy says a parking space must measure at least 5.5 metres from the highway boundary to the property or other obstruction.
The policy says applications for dropped kerbs need to satisfy both planning and highway requirements before they can proceed.
What happened Mr X applied to the Council for a dropped kerb so he could park in the area in front of his house. He asked for six flush kerbs and two transition kerbs. The Council approved three flush kerbs and one transition kerb.
Mr X appealed this decision.
The Council refused the appeal on the grounds that the proposed parking area was below the minimum length requirement of 5.5 metres. The Council said it does not allow parallel or diagonal parking behind a footpath. It said Mr X could apply for a disabled parking bay as an alternative.
Mr X made further representations to the Council. The Council gave permission for four flush kerbs and one transition kerb.
Mr X complained.
The Council said it had assessed Mr X’s application and found that only part of his house’s frontage met the requirements of the Council’s highway design guide. It said there is a bay window on Mr X’s house, and this means the proposed area for the parking space decreased to 4.3 metres. The Council said this fell far short of the required 5.5 metres.
The Council said that only part of the area Mr X proposed to use for the parking space complied with its highway standards. The Council said what it had agreed (the four flush kerbs and one transition kerb) can meet Mr X’s mobility needs. It said this was the best it could approve while remaining compliant with its highway design standards.
The Council said while its standards are intended to create conditions where people park facing the highway, if Mr X wanted to, he could turn and park on his entire frontage on the whole of his private driveway. It said it was a matter for Mr X.
The Council said councils are responsible for setting their own highway safety standards. The Council said its highway design guide considers national guidance and British standards, but recognised there are minor local variations. It said its highway standards were largely consistent with other councils.
Mrs X then brought Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman on Mr X’s behalf.
Analysis Council’s decision to refuse permission for an extended dropped kerb Mrs X complained the Council unreasonably refused permission for an extended dropped kerb (part a of the complaint).
Our role is not to ask whether a council could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
I have considered the steps the Council took to consider Mr X’s application, and the information it took account of when making its decision. I find the Council made the decision not to approve Mr X’s application for six flush kerbs in line with its policy. It was entitled to make this decision. I find no fault in how the Council made the decision. Therefore, I cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
Mrs X also complained that the Council used distorted images to justify its decision. She said these distorted images are the ones the Council used in its complaint response to illustrate its findings.
I find the Council did not use the pictures to justify its decision not to approve Mr X’s application. The Council used the pictures to show what it considered was in line with its highway standards. They were only used as an illustration. I therefore do not find the Council at fault here.
Unfair regulations Mrs X complained the Council’s regulations are unfair compared to other councils (part b of the complaint). Mrs X said other councils have different allowances for parking spaces. Mrs X said it is unreasonable for the Council to expect a full metre more for its minimum space than other councils.
The Council is entitled to decide its regulations itself. I have considered the Council’s highway design guide. It references the government’s most recent planning policy and guidance, government guidance on transport assessments, local policies and strategies. I find no fault with the Council for this policy and the requirements within it.
Contradictions Mrs X complained the Council contradicted itself (part c of the complaint). Mrs X said the Council said Mr X was not allowed to park in the way the plans had been drawn up (at an angle of approximately 45 degrees to the road). But she said the Council also said Mr X can park how he wants.
When the Council refused Mr X’s appeal, it said it does not allow parallel or diagonal parking behind a footpath. In the complaint response, the Council said its standards are intended to create conditions where people park facing the highway. The Council said Mr X could turn and park on his entire frontage and manoeuvre the vehicle on the whole of his own private driveway if he wanted to.
The Council correctly applied its highway design standards when considering Mr X’s appeal. I find the Council’s complaint response was realistic when it said regardless of its intentions when approving or refusing applications, the way Mr X parks on his driveway is a matter for him.
I do not find the Council contradicted itself. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. I do not uphold Mrs X's complaint. This is because there is no fault.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman