Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s maintenance of a road and its response to a request for a vehicle crossover. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in its decision about the vehicle crossover, or its refusal to revisit historic matters to warrant investigation by us. Mr X also has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use regarding the Council’s repair of the pavement and kerb outside his home.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly required him to alter his driveway in order for it to install a vehicle crossover. He says it instead renewed the pavement and kerb outside his home in a way that took no account of his needs. He says the Council should have acted on the basis of an application he made in 2016 for a vehicle crossover, rather than applying a 2022 change in regulations, which would have meant no need for him to alter his driveway. He says the Council failed to dela with his complaint properly.

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))
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council’s offer to Mr X was twofold: either to extend the width of the current crossover by 60cms, or to provide a wider crossover if he altered his driveway to comply with changed regulations since 2022 regarding environmental standards. It declined to consider matters from a previous application Mr X made in 2016. If we were to investigate this matter, it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council making two offers based on current regulations, and refusing to return to historic matters that we would not ourselves investigate. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to raise these matters from 2016-18 much sooner.
9. If Mr X is dissatisfied with the works carried out by the Council in 2025 to renew the kerb and pavement outside his property, he has the right to apply to a Magistrates’ court for an order requiring the Council to take whatever action is needed to bring a highway up to standard.
10. Only the courts can decide whether the Council has maintained the highway properly or is liable for any damage to property due to a failure to repair the highway. The law also gives the Council the right to defend in court against any claims. It is therefore reasonable for Mr X to go to court about that matter and so we will not investigate.
11. It is not a proportionate use of our resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling, including its handling of reasonable adjustments, when we are not investigating the substantive issues.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because:

• Investigation by us of the Council’s offer to Mr X and its refusal to consider historic matters would be unlikely to lead to a finding of fault;
• There is no good reason for us to exercise discretion to investigate those historic matters now; and
• It would be reasonable for Mr X to go to court if he is dissatisfied with works carried out by the Council to the kerb and pavement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman