Summary: Mr X complained about the Council approving a vehicle crossing for his neighbour which is joined to the one which he paid for. He says the Council should not have approved it because the neighbour has to drive over part of his own crossing. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which has caused significant injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council giving permission to a neighbour to have a vehicle crossing which is joined to his own. He says the neighbour is driving over a corner of his crossing for access because the Council refused to remove a tree in the verge. He wants the Council to either remove the tree or prevent his neighbour from crossing over the driveway.

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 or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X applied for a vehicle crossover which was approved as a single crossover for his property. In 2019 the Council started constructing a crossover for his neighbour which was joined to his own making a double dropped kerb and crossing. A tree in the highway verge prevented the Council from making a full width crossing for the neighbour and Mr X says the neighbour drives over the corner of his crossing to gain access.
5. Mr X complained to the Council. The Council told him that the neighbour’s crossing meets the required safety standards and that it will not remove an amenity tree which is healthy. Mr X involved local councillors whom he says agreed with his view that the tree should be removed.
6. The Council is the highway authority and it can decide whether or not a vehicle crossing is approved. The neighbour has built a full-length wall down the property boundary so he cannot drive over Mr X’s land. He may be driving over part of the crossing originally constructed for Mr X’s application but this is part of the public highway. Mr X paid for permission to drive over the footway but the application makes it clear that the crossing remains part of the highway and he does not own it.
7. The Council considers the crossings to be satisfactory, but it says it is negotiating further with the neighbour. Whilst local councillors may express a view about a matter raised by a member of the public, they are not the highway authority and it is for the officers to decide applications.
8. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. In this case the Council as highway authority had the power to allow a vehicle crossing to join an existing one. There is insufficient evidence that this has caused any significant injustice to Mr X which would warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which has caused significant injustice to Mr X.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman