Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s position relating to the lawfulness of a vehicle crossover. There is insufficient evidence of fault and it is unlikely an investigation would reach a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to properly consider the evidence before deciding that it does not consider a vehicle crossover to be lawful. He says this has caused him difficulty in using his driveway. He also complains about a delay responding to his complaint. He wants the Council to respond to the points he has raised, compensate him for loss of use of part of his property and take appropriate action against a third party who he alleges submitted false information to the Council.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (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 the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In its complaint responses, the Council set out its position related to the crossover including consideration of the planning history, a recent planning application and its current policies.
7. Although Mr X wants further explanation, the Council has set out its position in its complaint responses. The Council appears to have appropriately considered the matter including information and evidence submitted by Mr X. Although Mr X does not agree with the outcome, there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its position to justify an investigation.
8. Mr X also wants the Council to take action against a third party, whom he alleges submitted false information as part of a recent planning application. The Council has explained that it considered the application in line with its planning process. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.
9. The Council has apologised to Mr X for the delay during its complaints handling and offered him a financial remedy to acknowledge the inconvenience caused. This is an appropriate response. An investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman