Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainants application for two dropped kerbs outside his home. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council refused his application for two dropped kerbs outside his home. He also complains it delayed in responding to his correspondence and telephone calls.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure.’ I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied for two dropped kerbs to allow off-road parking outside his home. He says the Council recently approved a similar arrangement at another property in his street.
6. The Council refused his request. Its policy on dropped kerbs says:

“Where formal access to off street parking already exists, an additional second crossover ramp will normally be refused.”

7. Mr X appealed against the decision. Another officer reviewed the application. The head of the Council’s highway department considered Mr X’s appeal. Neither of these officers were involved in the initial decision.
8. I understand Mr X does not believe the Council fully considered the exceptional circumstances which he believes should outweigh the Council policy.
• He has young children and it is dangerous for them to get in and out of a car parked on the road
• He provides care to his bother who has mental illness; and
• He receives regular visits from his elderly parents who are full-time carers for his brother.
9. The Council’s response states that people with limited mobility or illness visiting a property is not unusual. Also, young children living in a property is again, not unusual. It therefore considers Mr X’s grounds for appeal are not exceptional and do not warrant disapplying the policy.
10. The Council has also confirmed the neighbour’s application for two dropped kerbs was approved in error. The fact the neighbour has benefitted from the Council’s mistake does not mean the Council should approve Mr X’s application which also does not meet its policy requirements.
11. When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether we agree with Council officers’ professional judgement. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions. In this case Mr X’s application was properly considered against the policy and permission was given for a single dropped kerb only. His following appeal was considered fully before the original decision was upheld.
12. From the information I have seen, it appears Mr X had to chase the Council several times for responses to his emails. We expect the Council to respond to enquiries according to its service standards. However, it is not an effective use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault which warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman