Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal of a vehicle crossing. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb and vehicle crossing. She says the Council’s responses have been inconsistent and there are other crossings previously approved even though they do not mee the guidance requirements like her own.

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. 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X applied for a dropped kerb and vehicle crossing. The Council rejected the application, initially because it involves crossing a wide grassed area and the loss of a space in a parking bay. She asked the Council to reconsider, and it was again refused. She complained about the decision because she says there are other properties on the street with driveways and crossings which have been approved in the past.
7. The Council told her it accepted that crossings had been approved in the past which fail the current standards and this has resulted in unsuitable crossings with cars overhanging the footway. The Council says it will not allow any breaches of the guidance now which requires a minimum space of 5.5metres within the property boundary. Ms X’s application does not meet this requirement and so it will not be approved.
8. There is no fault in the decision to refuse Ms X’s application. Any historical decisions on other applications do not affect the outcome of how her application was considered.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal of a vehicle crossing. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman