Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his application for a second vehicle crossover. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, complains the Council granted and then withdrew approval for a second vehicle crossover at his property. He says the explanations provided by the Council about how the wrong decision was initially made are unsatisfactory and that it did not properly consider whether he had extenuating circumstances sufficient to warrant a second crossover. He seeks the refund of his original application fee and permission for the second crossover.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B and the Council. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B applied for a second vehicle crossover at his property. A Council officer visited the site and confirmation of conditional approval was sent to Mr B for the new crossover.
5. Shortly after, the Council contacted Mr B to advise the decision to allow the crossover had been made incorrectly and that it would not be allowed.
6. In response to Mr B’s complaint about this matter, the Council advised that its policy only allowed for one crossover, unless there were extenuating circumstances, and it explained how the mistake had come about.
7. Dissatisfied with the explanation he had been given, and suspicious a neighbour’s application for a vehicle crossover had led the Council to reverse its decision on his application, Mr B pursued his complaint. The Council confirmed human error had caused the mistake and that his neighbour had had no influence in the decision it had made. The Council apologised for its error and the inconvenience caused. However, it confirmed the extenuating circumstances Mr B had put forward had been considered but did not warrant an exception to its one crossover per property policy which is in place to maintain a level of on street parking.

Assessment

8. The Council officer who first considered Mr B’s application made a mistake. Once the error was discovered, the Council followed up quickly to change its decision and inform Mr B. I understand Mr B hopes were raised and then dashed, but under Council policy he is not entitled to a second crossover unless there are extenuating circumstances. The Council has assessed those put forward by Mr B but have found they are not of sufficient weight to depart from its stated policy. The merits of this decision are not open to review by the Ombudsman.
9. This has clearly been a disappointing process for Mr B but an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add significantly to what Mr B has already been told or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman