Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, brought by Mr Y, about the Council’s consideration of enforcement against some of Mr X’s neighbours’ driveways and vehicle crossovers, and how it handled the complaint. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. We do not investigate council complaint-handling when we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X sought, paid for and received permission from the Council for a vehicle crossover at his property. Mr Y is Mr X’s relative and complains on Mr X’s behalf that the Council:
1. has not taken enforcement action against other residents in Mr X’s area whom he considers have installed vehicle accesses without permission;
2. failed to properly reply to his complaint.
2. Mr Y says Mr X feels he has been put at a financial disadvantage because he paid for his crossover and others have not. Mr X wants to know planning rules are being consistently applied. If he has paid for a permission he did not need, he wants a refund of his fees. If some of his neighbours have not got permission, he wants the Council to take enforcement action.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, relevant online maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. There are two types of development required for someone to create off-street parking at their property where there is a footway between that property and the roadway. Firstly, the property owner needs to install a hardstanding area to create parking space on their land. Such development would normally be ‘permitted development’, a type of work which does not require planning permission. Secondly, the property owner would require a vehicle crossover, allowing them to access their property in a vehicle, from the roadway by crossing the footway. This would include the installation of a dropped kerb and reinforcement of the footway to allow it to take the weight of a vehicle.
6. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council explained the works to create the hardstanding at the properties he named would be permitted development. Officers investigated Mr X’s reports and initially determined the properties which had created hardstandings had not unlawfully installed vehicle crossovers, so there had been no breach of planning to enforce. Officers also explained that where there are no dropped kerbs and crossovers that these would be reported to the Council’s Highway department for possible enforcement. Officers advised Mr X that national government guidance to councils is to only take formal legal action for highways or planning breaches where there is serious harm caused. They agreed to keep Mr X updated on its enforcement decisions.
7. We cannot say the Council is being inconsistent in its application of planning and highways regulations regarding driveways and crossovers. Officers have indicated the possible enforcement matters are under consideration. The Council should be updating Mr X once it has assessed the properties in question.
8. In any event, even if the Council has been at fault in this matter prior to any future decisions about enforcement, we will not investigate. The fees Mr X paid as part of the process to gain his crossover means his works have been authorised. The permission he has means there should be no queries raised about his use of the crossover or when selling or renting the property. He has therefore received the appropriate benefit of the fees he paid. If any other properties somehow gain a crossover without the need for paid-for permission, or are not enforced against by the Council under its discretionary planning or highways powers, that is not a significant personal injustice to Mr X. We recognise Mr X may be annoyed if this happened. But another person’s good fortune is not Mr X’s injustice. Mr X’s possible annoyance, and the neighbours’ use of small sections of the footway to access their properties, do not amount to a sufficient significant personal injustice which warrants an investigation.
9. Mr Y complains about the way the Council handled Mr X’s complaint. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to him by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman