Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s rejection of his enquiries about applying for a second vehicle crossing at his property. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council advising him that it was unlikely to approve any application for a second vehicle crossing at his property. He says that when he enquired in 2013 the Council did not dismiss the possibility but when he enquired again in 2020 it told him it was unlikely.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X says he approached the Council about a second vehicle crossing in 2013. The Council said it was possible that he could have one approved if he applied. When he made further enquiries in 2020 the Council told him that it was unlikely he would receive approval under the current policy. Mr X has not so far submitted an application.
6. Mr X says there are other second crossings in his area and that the Council is acting unreasonably. The Council says these may have been approved under previous policy and that each application is considered on its own merits.
7. Councils as highway authorities have a discretionary power to approve vehicle crossings onto the public highway. The Council charges a non-refundable fee of £195 for crossing applications and will not give a formal decision until an application has been processed.
8. Mr X complained that there is no right of appeal against a decision on a crossing. The Council has no statutory obligation to provide an appeal, but it can consider a complaint about the process under the Complaints Procedure.

Analysis

9. The Council has discretion to decide vehicle crossing applications. It can refuse them where they do not comply with its policy and there are highway reasons to refuse. Mr X did not submit an application in 2013 or 2020 so he has not received a decision from the Council and so there is no appeal or ground for complaint about the procedure.

We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process. This means that if the Council rejects any application made in future on the grounds that it does not meet its requirements, we would not investigate the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman