Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject 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, complains about the Council’s decision to reject his dropped kerb application. He wants the dropped kerb partly so he can reserve a parking space outside his home. Mr X says the Council is treating him unfairly because some of his neighbours have dropped kerbs.

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 dropped kerb application and the policy. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb. The Council refused his application because his driveway does not meet the size requirement for either parallel or perpendicular parking.
6. Mr X appealed. He said many other properties in the street have dropped kerbs even though their driveways are the same size as his. Mr X also said other people park outside his house and he wants a dropped kerb partly to guarantee a parking place outside his home. In response the Council confirmed Mr X’s property does not meet the size requirements. It said applications are assessed against the current policy and the presence of existing dropped kerbs are not taken into account.
7. The Council explained that dropped kerbs are not intended to reserve parking spots and, unless there are parking restrictions, the highway is available for parking.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I have checked the driveway dimensions stated in the inspection report and it is correct that Mr X’s driveway does not meet the size requirements. It is also correct that the policy says that existing dropped kerbs are not taken into account. I appreciate Mr X thinks it is unfair that some of his neighbours have dropped kerbs but the existing crossovers will have been approved under previous polices which do not apply to new applications assessed against the current policy. This is not discrimination.
9. One of the reasons Mr X wants a dropped kerb is to stop other people parking outside his home and to reserve a space. The Council correctly explained that this is not the purpose of a dropped kerb. There are no parking restrictions outside Mr X’s home which means anyone can park there. I appreciate it may be hard to find a parking space but nobody has the right to park outside their home unless this is a specific designation such as a personalised disabled parking bay.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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