Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s refusal of the complainant’s application for a domestic vehicle crossing. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is nothing to suggest the Council’s decision was affected by fault.

The complaint

1. Mr B applied to the Council for a domestic vehicle crossing (DVC) which would allow him to access his property from the highway. The Council refused his application and did not uphold his appeal against the refusal.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint which we call as ‘injustice’.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. We do not provide a right of appeal against a council’s decision. 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 that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council. I have also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council. Its criteria for providing a DVC state there must be 4.8 metres between the front of a house and the property boundary. In Mr B’s case the distance is 3.3 metres and so the Council has correctly applied its policy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman