Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for 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 and says he does not understand why the Council rejected it. Mr X says a dropped kerb would not affect anyone and would be beneficial.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the application, photographs, and the dropped kerb policy. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb (parallel parking). He said on the application form that the available width is 6 metres. An officer visited and, after measuring, found the width is 5.2 metres.
5. The Council refused the application because it does not meet the width requirements. Mr X challenged the decision and said there are many properties in the street with a dropped kerb.
6. The Council explained it can only assess an application against the current policy and the presence of existing dropped kerbs does not mean a new application will be approved. It explained that the most recent approval in Mr X’s road was in 2018 and the current policy has been in force since 2022. The Council confirmed it cannot approve the application because it does not meet the size requirements.
7. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The dropped kerb policy says that for parallel parking the proposed area must have a minimum width of 6 metres. Mr X’s property width is 5.2 metres and the Council has correctly explained that the application does not meet the criteria as stated in the current policy. The Council also explained that the presence of existing dropped kerbs does not mean Mr X’s application can be approved.
8. I appreciate Mr X thinks a dropped kerb would be beneficial to the street but, as the decision reflects the policy, there is no reason to start an investigation. We are not an appeal body and we cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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