The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council decided on his application for a dropped kerb and his review request. There was no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its decisions. The Council was at fault for delays in providing an outcome to Mr X’s review request, but it has already apologised for the injustice caused.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb is flawed. Mr X says his parking area is big enough to accommodate a car without causing obstruction to the footpath and neighbours who have parking areas with similar or smaller dimensions have had their applications approved.
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(1), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Relevant law and policy If a motorist needs to drive across the pavement into a driveway or parking area, they need a dropped kerb. A dropped kerb or vehicle crossover is an area of lowered pavement and kerbstones. The property owner must get the authority’s permission to install a dropped kerb. They might also need to get planning permission.
Authorities have their own processes, fees and rules for approving dropped kerb applications. We expect authorities to be clear and make people aware of any relevant conditions before they pay a fee which they may not get back.
The Council’s website sets out how it considers applications for vehicle access, crossovers and dropped kerbs. This explains a proposal for new access or to extend existing access will need to satisfy both planning and highway requirements.
The Council’s policy says on receipt of the application the Council will inspect the applicant’s driveway for suitability. The policy explains the parking area must be a minimum of 2.4 metres wide by 4.5 metres deep, or 5.5 metres wide by 2.4 metres deep where a vehicle would be parked parallel to the public highway, with soft landscaping accounting for 20% of the total area in front of the property in addition to those measurements.
The Council’s policy explains the Council will let applicants know in writing if their applications do not conform to the criteria. The policy explains applicants can ask for refusal decisions to be reviewed and says it will provide a final decision within 40 working days of a review request.
What happened I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
In January 2025, Mr X submitted an application for a dropped kerb and the Council assigned this to an inspection officer.
The inspection officer visited Mr X’s property to take measurements and recommended the application be declined as it did not meet the minimum frontage requirements.
The Council wrote to Mr X to confirm it had refused his application as there was not sufficient space in the parking area to ensure a parked vehicle does not overhang the footway and manoeuvring on and off the public highway can be done safely. The Council explained Mr X had the right to appeal against this decision and provided information about how to do so.
Mr X submitted an appeal to the Council on 30 January. Mr X explained he would be driving a compact electric vehicle which would fit on the parking area and could be charged there. Mr X also explained his wife had medical difficulties which meant she would benefit from being able to park closer to their home and said he had concerns about vehicle crime in the area.
On 27 March the Council missed the 40 working day deadline set out in its policy to provide Mr X with an outcome to his review request.
The Council provided Mr X with an outcome to his review request on 7 April, around ten days late. The Council apologised for the time taken to respond, but explained its decision remained unchanged. The Council explained how it had considered Mr X’s appeal points but explained this did not change its reasons for refusing the application and that it had to apply restrictions consistently.
Analysis The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means our role is not to consider whether a dropped kerb application should have been approved or not. Rather, we consider whether the Council decided on the application properly, having regard for the key factors and policies which are relevant.
If we consider the Council followed processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with it.
Once the Council received Mr X’s application, it promptly assigned an inspection officer to carry out measurements. As the measurements the inspection officer took did not comply with the Council’s minimum requirements, they recommended the application be refused. The Council then wrote to Mr X to explain why it had refused his application and to provide details about how to request a review. The Council followed its usual process here and I do not find it at fault.
The Council’s response to Mr X’ review requests shows it considered the points he had raised and why it had decided these did not warrant approving the application. While I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council. I do not find fault with the process it followed to make its decision.
I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s reasoning, but it is not my role to criticise a decision it has made where it has followed the right process in reaching that decision. I could not say previous decisions the Council has made on neighbours’ applications are a reason to find fault with how Mr X’s application was considered. Mr X has said the Council has discretion to overlook small differences in measurements and approve his application, however the Council deciding not to do so is not reason enough for me to find it at fault.
While I do not find fault with how the Council considered Mr X’s application or review request, there was a delay of around ten days in the Council providing Mr X with a final outcome. This is poor practice and amounts to fault. This would have caused uncertainty and frustration for Mr X, which is injustice. However, the Council has already apologised to Mr X for the delay, and I find this is a suitable remedy for the injustice.
Decision I find fault causing injustice, but the Council has already taken action to remedy this injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman