Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, disagrees with the Council’s decision to refuse her application to extend her dropped kerb. She says the reasons are unfair because the Council has given permission to other households. Mrs X wants the Council to grant permission for an extension.

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 Mrs X and the Council. This includes the correspondence about the application, a photograph of the site, and the dropped kerb policy. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The dropped kerb policy says the maximum permitted width of a dropped kerb is 4.6 metres and a dropped kerb will not be allowed if it would cover the full width of the property.
6. Mrs X applied to extend her dropped kerb. The Council visited the site to assess the application. The Council refused the application because the crossover would cover the full width of the property.
7. Mrs X appealed and explained why she wants a dropped kerb. She also said there were other similar dropped kerbs in the area.
8. The Council addressed the points Mrs X had raised and provided more information about why it would not approve the application (for example, the loss of on-street parking); it confirmed it would not grant consent because of the policy requirements. It said new applications are assessed against the current policy and existing dropped kerbs may have been assessed under previous policies. The Council said it does not take existing dropped kerbs into account when it assesses new applications.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council assessed the application in line with the policy; it refused permission because of the width of the proposed crossing and the loss of on-street parking. The decision reflects the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. In addition, the Council correctly explained that it does not take existing dropped kerbs into account.
10. Mrs X disagrees with the decision and has explained why she would like the extension. However, we are not an appeal body. We can only intervene if there is fault in the way a council makes a decision. In this case there is no suggestion of fault in the way the Council assessed the application so there is no reason to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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