Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to revoke permission to extend her dropped kerb. This is because the Council we are satisfied with the Council’s actions to resolve the complaint. It has apologised to Mrs X, paid her £100 and agreed to reimburse her professional fees totalling £594. While Mrs X would like the Council to allow her to extend her dropped kerb against its policy this is not an outcome we could achieve for her.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council revoked its permission for her to extend her existing dropped kerb as it made an error in approving her application. She says the Council was aware of all the facts from her application form and believes its revocation may be contrary to its policy. She also argues there is sufficient space to park vehicles on her property so she wants the Council to allow her to extend the dropped kerb as initially approved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Decisions about whether to approve applications for extensions to dropped kerbs are a matter for relevant councils (those which act as the local highway authority) to make.
6. Ideally councils will consider applications properly at the first try and will only grant permission where they are satisfied their criteria are met and the extension is acceptable. However the process relies on officers to consider and decide these points and errors do therefore happen.
7. The Council’s approval of Mrs X’s application clearly raised her expectations but I have seen nothing to suggest its subsequent decision to revoke the permission and refuse her application is wrong.
8. The Council has explained the extension applied for exceeds the maximum width allowable under its policy and that Mrs X does not have sufficient space available for parking within the boundary of her property to comply with its criteria. While Mrs X challenges this as she says vehicles can park on her land without overhanging the highway the Council’s criteria refer to specific dimensions, rather than looking at whether certain cars may fit into the space available. This is because once a dropped kerb is extended the Council has no control over which cars may use it.
9. I have seen nothing to suggest Mrs X’s parking spaces exceed 4.8m in depth or that the Council’s measurement of her existing dropped kerb is wrong; it is therefore unlikely we would find fault in its decision not to allow Mrs X to proceed with her dropped kerb extension.
10. The Council’s error has clearly caused Mrs X some injustice, not least in raising her expectations about being able to proceed with the extension. But it has acknowledged this, apologised to Mrs X and paid her £100 in recognition of its failure. It has also agreed to pay two invoices for professional fees incurred by Mrs X as part of the application process.
11. The Council’s actions provide a suitable remedy for Mrs X and it is therefore unlikely further investigation would achieve anything more for her.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are satisfied with the Council’s actions to resolve the complaint. It acknowledges it approved Mrs X’s application in error and its apology and payments to Mrs X, which total £694, provide a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman