Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to tell her and other residents about proposals before installing an electric vehicle charging point on the road outside Miss X’s home. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also we do not consider Miss X has suffered a significant personal injustice and we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council installed an electric vehicle charging point (EVCP) on the street outside her home without notifying or consulting her or her neighbours.
2. She says she is a Blue Badge holder and intends to apply for a dropped kerb later in the year due to her mobility issues. Miss X says the location of the EVCP:
• Obstructs her driveway.
• Should be located elsewhere, either in another road or not outside houses.
3. Miss X wants the EVCP moved and a dropped kerb installed at her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council confirms it delivered leaflets to all residents with information about the proposed EVCPs. It also placed an article in the Council magazine.
8. It is not required to consult on the location of EVCPs. It publicised the proposal. It also says it checked its records and there were no pending applications for dropped kerbs.
9. I understand Miss X says she intended to apply for a dropped kerb outside her home at some point in the future. However, she has not. She also says the location of the charging station makes it more difficult to get her three children in and out of the car safely. Miss X says there are more suitable locations for the EVCPs.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. It publicised the proposal before installation. It is unfortunate Miss X did not see the leaflet or article, but this is not fault.
12. It is also unfortunate that Miss X has not yet applied for a dropped kerb, but this is not the Council’s fault. The Council has advised it will support Miss X if she applies for a dropped kerb in the future.
13. I acknowledge Miss X says it is difficult to get her three children in and out of the care safely. However, no person has the right to park on the public road outside their home and it is not an injustice there may be less on-road parking space because of extra facilities.
14. In addition, we cannot require the Council to reposition the EVCP.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. We do not consider Miss X has suffered a significant personal injustice and we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman