Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the deterioration of a highway crossover. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that after the Council approved his application to install a hardstanding in his garden, it allowed the adjoining highway land to deteriorate. He says he cannot safely access his hardstanding.

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. (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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X received a grant from the Borough Council to install hardstanding in his garden for his vehicle. It explained that Mr X would need permission for a crossover and resurfacing of relevant land.
6. In April 2025, the Council granted planning permission for the hardstanding, noting the existing access would be used. The Council explained Mr X would still have to comply with other regulations.
7. Mr X complained to the Council that the land between his property and the road had deteriorated and it made access difficult. He said that because the hardstanding was funded due to his disability, the Council should pay for this to be fixed.
8. The Council said it did not have a duty to maintain the concrete between the road and Mr X’s hardstanding. It said it had explained this to Mr X prior to the installation of the hardstanding. It had told him that a license would be needed to undertake the work and this would be at Mr X’s expense.
9. 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.
10. In making its decision, the organisation took account of the relevant guidance, information from Mr X, and its own policies. The organisation followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision and, therefore, I cannot criticise it.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman