Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application for a dropped kerb. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered her application. There is fault in the delay in its response to the complainant, however we consider the Council’s apology to be a suitable remedy on this point.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs X, disagrees with the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb. She says the Council has been inconsistent because it has approved dropped kerbs for properties nearby with smaller front gardens than her own.
2. Mrs X also complains the Council delayed in reassessing her property and responding to her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council assesses dropped kerb applications against published rules. The rules say it will approve an application if the space at the front of the property has a minimum depth of 4.8 metres and minimum width of 2.4 metres.
7. Mrs X applied for a dropped kerb. The Council refused the application because the front of her property is only 4.2 metres deep and therefore does not meet the minimum requirement.
8. Sometime later, Mrs X challenged the decision. She said the Council has been inconsistent in allowing neighbouring properties with smaller front gardens to have dropped kerbs.
9. The Council said it had refused the application because Mrs X’s property does not meet the minimum depth requirements. It agreed to send an Officer to reassess her property, however, there was a delay in the site visit.
10. An Officer did revisit Mrs X property. However, they reconfirmed her property does not meet the minimum required depth.
11. The Council says it may be that assessments of neighbouring properties were inconsistent with policy, but this would not be corrected by allowing more dropped kerbs within the borough. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint.
12. I will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered her application. This is because the Council can only assess an application against its policy and Mrs X’s home does not meet the size requirements. The Council’s decision is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.
13. I acknowledge Mrs X believes the approval of other dropped kerbs for other properties which do not meet the minimum size requirements is unfair. However, because other residents may have benefited from what appears to be an error by the Council, does not mean the Council must grant permission for Mrs X’s application for a dropped kerb. We do not act as an appeal body, and we cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is no fault in the way the Council applied its policy on dropped kerbs to her application. It has apologised for the delay in reassessing her property and responding to her complaint. I consider this is a suitable remedy to this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman