Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a vehicle crossover because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, wants a refund because the crossover the Council built is not fit for purpose.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered photographs of the crossover and information about the Council’s parking enforcement policy. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. The highway code instructs drivers not to park in front of an entrance to a property.
5. People who find that their crossover is frequently blocked by cars can register their address with the Council. This allows officers to regularly visit the address. The Council can issue a Penalty Charge Notice if a vehicle overhangs a crossover.

What happened

6. Mr X paid £1400 to extend his crossover. The Council inspected the site before work started and was aware there were two manhole covers. Once work started it became apparent that the chambers below the manhole covers would not support the usual construction method. The Council was able to build the crossover but had to increase the height of the dropped kerb and the road. The edge of the crossover is marked by a tapered kerb.
7. Mr X says the way the Council has built the crossover means drivers do not recognise the crossover and park in front of his drive. He asked for a full or partial refund because the crossover is not fit for purpose. In response to his complaint the Council explained it had built the crossover to the maximum allowable width and that it had had to adjust the height to accommodate the manholes. It explained that a crossover is not a way to control inconsiderate parking and it invited Mr X to register for parking enforcement. The Council declined to pay compensation.
8. Mr X says it takes too long for officers to attend if he reports inconsiderate parking. He does not want to register his address because it might mean that family or friends, who parked across the drive with permission, were issued with a Penalty Charge Notice.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I have looked at photographs of the crossover and the Council has clearly built a crossover albeit with an adjustment to accommodate the manholes. There is a tapered kerb which marks the end of the crossover and drivers who park beyond the tapered kerb would be parking directly in front of a drive, contrary to the highway code.
10. Mr X says he could have made an informed decision about whether to proceed if the Council had told hm about the manholes. However, the extent of the problem did not come to light until after building work had started.
11. If Mr X finds that his drive is blocked he can report this to the Council. He could also register for enforcement so that he can receive regular visits. I appreciate it may take time for officers to attend but that is not linked to the construction of the crossover. It is for Mr X to decide whether the possible benefits of registering for enforcement outweigh any negative impact of family members not being able to park in front of the drive. The problem Mr X is facing is caused by inconsiderate parking rather than fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman