Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a vehicle crossover. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a vehicle crossover. Mrs X wants to be able to park on her property due to a lack of parking on the public highway. The Council has refused her application.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mrs X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I also gave Mrs X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs X applied for a vehicle crossover so she could park on her property. There is limited parking close to Mrs X’s home. The Council rejected Mrs X’s application.
6. In response to Mrs X’s complaint the Council said:
• There is no automatic right to a vehicle crossover. The Council provides applicants with a checklist of requirements.
• When it receives an application, each site is assessed.
• Just because there are vehicle crossovers in the area does not mean an application will be granted.
• It refused Mrs X’s application because there is a designated parking bay outside her property. When this is the case an application for a vehicle crossover will be refused.
• The parking bay is the responsibility of the borough council. It had contacted the borough council which had said parking spaces were in high demand in the area. It would not therefore remove the bay.
• Mrs X’s application also related to an area in a Controlled Parking Zone.
• Mrs X was unhappy with the way a council officer had spoken to her. The Council apologised for any distress caused and said the officer was trying to establish if there were any “extenuating circumstances”.
• Mrs X’s complaint was not upheld and if she remained unhappy could complain to the Ombudsman.
7. The role of the Ombudsman is to look for administrative fault. We are not an appeal body and cannot question the merits of a council’s decision if there is no fault in the way it was reached.
8. The Council has considered Mrs X’s application for a vehicle crossover. It has explained to Mrs X the reasons for rejecting her application. The Council’s decision is in line with its published policy which is on its website. It contacted the borough council to see if the parking space outside Mrs X’s property could be removed. It has responded to Mrs X’s complaint with what I consider to be a proportionate and reasonable response. While I know Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s decision, there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process for the Ombudsman to become involved.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman