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, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb. He also complains the Council will not meet him to negotiate a compromise. Mr X does not accept the Council’s appeal decision because he says it was not properly considered.

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. This includes the Council’s appeal response. I also considered the dropped kerb policy and our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The dropped kerb policy sets out the required depth and width requirements and says they must be met. The policy says the Council assesses each application individually in accordance with the current policy and does not take existing dropped kerbs into account.
6. The Council rejected Mr X’s application for a dropped kerb because the property does not meet the width and depth requirements. Mr X appealed; his main points were that the property is only slightly short of the requirements, he wants a dropped kerb to charge an electric car, and there are similar properties with dropped kerbs. Mr X suggested a call or meeting; he said he had negotiated compromises with other departments. Mr X also said he could make changes to the property to meet the size requirements.
7. In response, the Council reiterated that it cannot approve the application because the property does not meet the size requirements for perpendicular or parallel parking. It referred to the policy which says the Council does not take existing dropped kerbs into account and the presence of existing dropped kerbs does not necessarily mean a new application will be approved. The Council recognised increased electric car ownership but said it has a duty to ensure highway safety. It said a meeting is not needed because it cannot approve an application that does not meet the policy and it cannot take into account potential changes to the property which have not yet been made.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. This is because the Council’s decision is consistent with the policy. We are not an appeal body and we cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disputes. It is not my role to re-make the decision or decide if Mr X should have a dropped kerb. I can only consider if the Council reached the decision in accordance with the policy and the evidence shows that it did.
9. Mr X says the appeal decision is flawed because the Council responded quickly. The Council sent the response the next day but there is nothing in the reply to indicate it did not properly consider the issues and a prompt response does not necessarily demonstrate fault.
10. Mr X is unhappy the Council will not meet him to explore a compromise. The Council declined this request because it cannot approve the application due to the policy requirements and a meeting will not change this. Councils are not required to agree every request and I see nothing requiring an investigation in relation to this aspect of the complaint. In addition, the Council can only consider applications that do not meet the policy requirements in exceptional circumstances to meet its public sector equality duty; there is nothing to suggest Mr X needs a dropped kerb for equality issues.
11. Mr X says the policy should be updated to reflect increasing electric car ownership. We cannot change council policy as this is a decision for elected members. Mr X could contact local councillors to explain why he thinks the Council should update the policy. But, it would be for the Council to decide whether to make any changes.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there in insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman