Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal of Mrs X’s vehicle crossing extension application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s rejection of her application to widen her driveway by extending the dropped kerb outside her home. She says she needs the additional width to reduce parking tensions with her neighbours on the street.

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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X says she needed to extend the width of her driveway which requires installing additional dropped kerbs. She says there is an ongoing dispute with neighbours over parking on the street and she wanted to allow more space for vehicles on her drive.
7. Mrs X paid to have the driveway altered and obtained a quote for the cost of the highway modification directly from the Council’s commercial contractor. When she was about to have the work done the Council’s highway officers told her that she needed permission to alter the highway kerbs and extend the driveway.
8. Mrs X applied for permission, but this was refused on highway grounds. Mrs X appealed the decision, but this was also rejected. The Council told her it was satisfied that she had adequate parking provision at her home and that further loss of street parking was undesirable in the area.

We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal of Mrs X’s vehicle crossing extension application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman