Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his application for a vehicle crossover. This is because the complaint is late and I have seen no good reasons for the delay in bringing it to us. There is also not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about changes to the Council’s ‘vehicle crossover’ policy which took effect from September 2021. He blames the Council for delays in dealing with his application and believes the Council’s conditions and cost of installing a new vehicle crossover at his property were unreasonable. He wants the Council to refund him £1,000 for work he considers was unnecessary and the result of the Council’s delays.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X originally applied for a vehicle crossover in October 2021. He complains the Council did not give him advice prior to this when he requested it and failed to deal with his application promptly. It then refused the application.
8. Mr X reapplied to the Council in July 2022 and, after further discussions, it approved his application in September 2023. But Mr X was unhappy with conditions placed on the approval and the estimate of the cost for completing the work, which was over £2,500. Mr X blames the Council’s change of policy for increasing the cost by £1,000 and says certain requirements, including the need to strengthen the footpath and use the Council’s preferred contractor, are unreasonable.
9. However, Mr X’s complaints are late. Had he wished to complain about the Council’s handling of his original application he should have done so within 12 months of the actions complained about. His complaint about the Council’s handling of his more recent application is also late as Mr X knew about the Council’s conditions and the cost in September 2023 but did not bring his complaint to us until February 2025, some five months outside our time limit for investigation and five months after the Council’s final response referring him to us.
10. While we have discretion to investigate late complaints I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion in this case. Further, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice.
11. The Council’s approach to Mr X’s application follows its vehicle crossover policy, which has been in place since September 2021, and there is no basis for us to question the policy itself. The Council remains responsible for the vehicle crossover and is therefore entitled to specify that the footpath must be strengthened. It is also allowed to require the applicant to use its preferred contractor.
12. If Mr X felt the estimate provided by the Council was unreasonable he did not have to proceed with it. The application process determines whether to grant a vehicle crossover but it does not mean the applicant has to go ahead. This was Mr X’s choice and there is no basis for us to say the Council must refund part of the cost as he would like.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is late and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman