Local Government Ombudsman

> | Accessiblity Options | Text Only | Text Size: A+ A- Reset | Links | Site Map

You are here: Home : : News and press : : 2008 : : December : : Faulty decision over vehicle access to home left couple with unnecessary costs of nearly £30,000

What's new

Browser support

Browse aloud

Click here for speech assisted browser support

Downloads

Site tools

Files with this symbol pdf icon are in .pdf format. To view these files you will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader software. It can be downloaded below free of charge. Click To Download

adobe acrobat reader

Faulty decision over vehicle access to home left couple with unnecessary costs of nearly £30,000

Archived press release

Date Published: 23/12/08

Luton Borough Council granted consent for a vehicle access to a couple's home without properly considering the legal and safety issues, and then withdrew it, leaving the couple with nearly £30,000 of unnecessary costs.

The Borough Council granted consent for a vehicle access without properly considering the legal and safety issues, and then withdrew it, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Jerry White. In his report, issued today (23 December 2008) he says that the couple incurred significant unnecessary costs that arose directly from the Council’s error in granting consent, and recommends it to pay £30,320 compensation.

‘Mr and Mrs Norton’ (not their real names for legal reasons) say that the Council withdrew consent for a vehicular access to their home after they were already committed to extensive landscaping works to accommodate a vehicle parking and turning area. As a result, they incurred unnecessary costs – and significantly and irreversibly altered their garden – without gaining the benefit of on-site parking that they had expected.

The Ombudsman’s investigation found that, after the Council gave consent for the vehicular access, Mr and Mrs Norton undertook some groundwork to prepare the site, obtained quotes for the work necessary to incorporate a parking and turning area within their property, and arranged a loan to cover the cost of the landscaping work. When the preliminary work to construct the access began, a complaint from another local resident alerted the Council to the fact that additional safety measures might be necessary.

The Council asked Mr and Mrs Norton to suspend work while it investigated, and they agreed as their contractor was not yet on site. Having agreed suitable safety measures, the Council led Mr and Mrs Norton to believe that work could begin, but then discovered that it did not have the necessary legal authority to allow a vehicular access in this location.

The Council withdrew consent for the vehicular access as Mr and Mrs Norton’s contractor was about to start work and after some materials had already been ordered. Mr and Mrs Norton modified the scheme to replace the planned parking and turning areas with usable garden space, but this scheme was more costly and was not at all how they would have landscaped their property had they known from the outset that they would not have the benefit of a vehicular access.

The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice and recommends that the Council should pay Mr and Mrs Norton a contribution towards the costs of borrowing money to finance the project, the costs incurred in modifying the project, their legal costs in pursuing the complaint, two thirds of the cost of the landscaping, and an additional £1,000 to compensate them for their raised expectations and distress. This amounts to £30,320 in total.

Report ref no 07B13378