Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject an application for a vehicle crossing. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to reject his application for a vehicle crossing. He says it should remove a tree which is affected by his application so that he can park closer to his home. He says the Council failed to properly consider his reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s responses.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied for a dropped kerb and vehicle crossing in 2024 but this was rejected by the Council because it says the work will affect the root system of a mature tree in the highway. He says the Council failed to consider his reasonable adjustments as a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010 and that his application should be approved.
6. The Council told him that a disabled parking bay would be a reasonable alternative and it could not justify the destruction of a mature amenity tree in this case. Mr X says a disabled bay would not meet his needs and that these bays are not enforceable so close parking is not guaranteed.
7. The provision of off-street parking is at the discretion of the highway authority and it has powers to determine what alterations should be made to the highway. The Council has rejected the application because it does not consider it to be worthwhile for the loss of the tree.
8. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. In this case the Council has explained that it will not remove a healthy tree and that it considers Mr X’s reasonable adjustments can be met with a disabled bay.
9. If he still believes the Council failed to have regard to his reasonable adjustments then Mr X would need to seek legal advice because only the courts can determine a challenge under the Equality Act.
10. When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made, and where we find fault in that process, we then determine whether or not it has caused the complainant a significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject an application for a vehicle crossing. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman