Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council decision to refuse the complainant’s application for a footway crossing. There is nothing to suggest the Council’s decision was affected by fault. Further, there is no evidence other fault caused the complainant significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, complained because the Council refused to allow his application to extend the existing footway crossing at his home. He says the decision is unfair and inconsistent with other decisions by the Council. He also says there was delay in hearing his appeal against the decision.

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’.
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;
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. We do not provide and appeal against a council’s decision. We cannot question whether a 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 also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council considered Mr B’s application and decided it did not meet the criteria set out in its policy on footway crossings. It explained its reasons to Mr B who appealed against the decision.
7. The Council reconsidered Mr B’s application and accepts there was some delay in doing so, for which it apologised. However, it confirmed its original decision to refuse the application.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because I have seen nothing to suggest fault in how the Council considered Mr B’s application. In the absence of fault we cannot question the Council’s decision even though I appreciate Mr B disagrees with it. There is no evidence of other fault, such as delay, which has caused Mr B injustice that would justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman