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

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council rejecting her application for a vehicle crossing. It says the crossing would require the removal of a mature street tree and this would have to be replaced under its highway policy. Mrs X does not wish to have a replacement tree which she says would restrict her access to an electric vehicle charging point.

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 and the Council’s policy on vehicle crossings.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X applied to the Council for a vehicle crossing. There is a mature tree outside her home in the footway and the Council told her its policy requires that ay amenity trees which are removed must be replaced by a new tree. Mrs X did not want a replacement tree because she says her partner needs access for an electric vehicle charger which would be obstructed by a tree.
7. The Council refused Mrs X’s application because it could not permit the loss of a tree without a replacement. Mrs X appealed the decision, but the original view was upheld.
8. The Council is the highway authority, and it has a policy for the approval of vehicle crossings. Mrs X’s application does not comply with its policy on preserving trees for environmental and street scene reasons.
9. The Ombudsman may not question the merits of decisions which have been made in a proper manner. This means the Ombudsman will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions. There is no fault in the Council’s application of its policy on trees.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s rejection of a vehicle crossing application. 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