Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision to reject his application for a dropped kerb.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the correspondence about the application and photos of the site. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb. His reasons for wanting a dropped kerb include having space to unload a car, easier access for relatives with mobility problems, to reduce congestion on the road, and to facilitate charging an electric car.
6. The Council rejected the application because it would involve the loss of a large area of grass (grass verge). It explained that although there were other properties where a dropped kerb had been approved, the loss of grass was not so extensive.
7. The policy says the Council will most likely refuse an application where the dropped kerb would involve the loss of a large area of grass. I have considered the photographs and they show that a dropped kerb outside Mr X’s home would involve the loss of a large area of grass. The inspection notes say the distance from the driveway to the kerb line, across the grass verge, is between 8.25m and 11.15m. The policy says the Council is more likely to take into account a grass loss of 3m.
8. I appreciate Mr X has explained why he disagrees with the decision and has presented reasons why he thinks a dropped kerb would be beneficial to him and to the wider community. He also said that at the site inspection he was led to the believe the application would be approved. But, we do not act as an appeal body and, as the final decision reflects the policy, there is no reason to start an investigation. Any impression Mr X may have gained during the inspection does not reflect the Council’s decision which was made after considering all the factors as stated in the policy.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman