West Sussex County Council (21 008 467)

Category : Transport and highways > Other

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 18 Nov 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to grant permission for a Vehicle Crossover. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse an application for a joint Vehicle Crossover (VCO) in front of her and her neighbour’s home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Ombudsman investigates 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 ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
  3. The complainant had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Ms X and her neighbour applied for a VCO between their two properties. The Council refused their application and dismissed their appeal.
  2. The Council’s VCO policy says that any grassed area can be an amenity area. It says that it is likely to refuse requests to cross or sever large grass amenity areas. The policy also says historic VCOs cannot be used as mitigation.
  3. The Council said it refused the application because the grassed area in front of Ms X and her neighbour’s property is considered an amenity area.
  4. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council’s decision to reject the VCO is consistent with the policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings