Summary: Mr X and Miss Y complained that despite granting conditional approval for a vehicle crossing the Council has since rejected their application. The Council’s failure to ensure the information available on its website regarding vehicle crossings is accurate and up to date regarding its processes is fault. This fault has caused Mr X and Miss Y an injustice for which the Council has apologised.

The complaint

1. The complainants, whom I shall refer to as Mr X and Miss Y complained that despite granting conditional approval for a vehicle crossing the Council has since rejected their application. Mr X and Miss Y complained the Council has not properly considered their request to remove a curb stone, which is not on a footpath, to access their driveway.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X and Miss Y;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Miss Y;
• Mr X, Miss Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

5. As Mr X and Miss Y were concerned about the parking in their area they carried out works to their garden to create an off road parking area. In doing so they state they complied with all of the Council’s guidelines and recommendations on the materials to be used and drainage. Mr X and Miss Y then applied to the Council for a vehicle crossover.
6. A highways inspector visited Mr X and Miss Y’s property on 6 July 2021 and the following week the Council wrote to them confirming conditional approval of the crossover. Mr X and Miss Y paid a £100 approval fee and contacted a contractor to carry out the work. Miss X states the contractor was concerned about the measurements and suggested he check with the Council before carrying out the work.
7. The contractor contacted the Council on 20 July 2021 and on 21 July 2021 a second highways inspector visited Mr X and Miss Y’s property to remeasure the depth of the hardstanding. The officer photographed the parking area and confirmed the measurements.
8. The Council then wrote to Mr X later that day and advised the depth of the crossing would not meet the minimum size of 4.8m within the property boundary. It confirmed the inspector had made an error in approving the crossing and that the application had to be rejected as it did not meet the criteria. The Council apologised for any inconvenience and refunded the £100 fee.
9. Mr X and Miss Y complained about this decision. They noted the initial inspector did not identify any objections to the proposal and that their submitted drawing showed there was ample space. They understood the Council had reviewed the measurements using Google Maps and pointed out they intended to park their car adjacent to their property, not at a perpendicular angle facing the property. This would comply with the regulations and the original inspector saw no issue with this.
10. Mr X and Miss Y provided photographs of their driveway and the surrounding streets. They noted there was a lack of parking in the area which led to dangerous practices. They also asserted that as the vehicle crossing was on to a through road, with no pedestrian footpath, dropping the curb would not result in any negative disruption to pedestrians.
11. The Council’s response reiterated that their application was refused as there was not a depth of 4.8m from the start of the hardstanding to the front of their property. It also stated that for safety reasons the vehicle must enter and be able to park at 90 degrees.
12. As Mr X and Miss Y continue to dispute the Council’s decision, they have asked the Ombudsman to investigate. They assert the Council has not properly considered their circumstances and that once the curb stone has been removed and replaced with a concrete ramp the depth to their property will meet the requirements.
13. In response to my enquiries the Council has confirmed that all photographs and measurements were done on site and not taken from Goggle Maps. It states it issued a conditional approval which was then cancelled due to an error by the inspector.
14. The Council refers to the vehicle crossings checklist completed by Mr X and Miss Y, section B of which considers the suitability of the site. Question 2 asks “Do you have sufficient room on your property to park a vehicle (If the answer is no, you will not be approved for a vehicle crossing).”
15. The Guidance note for this questions states:

“You are not permitted to park any vehicles on the crossing. You must ensure there is sufficient room on your property to prevent your vehicle from protruding onto the footway/ verge when parked.

A minimum hard standing of 4.8m (length) x 2.7m (width) within the property boundary must be allowed.

You will need to be able to cross the footway/ verge at right angles (90⁰) to the road.”

16. The Council’s website refers applicants to it Domestic Vehicle Crossing Conditions of construction and use. However the Council states this is an old, outdated document introduced by a company the Council has not contracted with for over five years. These conditions state that if any dimension requirements for a Domestic Vehicle Crossing (including hard standing) are not met, a Highways inspector may carry out a site inspection to consider approval. The Highways Inspector’s decision as to whether the application will be approved or refused is final. However the Council states inspectors now play no part in the decision but simply make recommendations to the network technicians.
17. The Council arranged for a second inspector to visit and remeasure the hardstanding. But the inspector did not make the final decision regarding final approval.

Analysis

18. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether Mr X and Miss X should have a vehicle crossing; that is the Council’s job. We can only consider whether the Council assessed their application correctly.
19. It is clear from the information provided that Mr X and Miss Y’s hardstanding does not measure 4.8 m from the boundary of their property to their house. The second inspector’s measurements show the length of the hardstanding between the house and the boundary varies between 3.6m and 4.5m.
20. However, the hardstanding and proposed vehicle crossing are to the side of Mr X and Miss Y’s property rather than the front. Mr X and Miss X state the hard standing along the length of their house is 8m long and that the intention is to park their vehicle adjacent to the house, rather than perpendicular to it.
21. The Council’s response to their complaint states that for safety reasons the vehicle must enter and be able to park at 90 degrees. However the checklist only refers to vehicles crossing the footway at 90 degrees it does not specify they must park in this way.
22. The Domestic Vehicle Crossing Conditions of construction and use document is still on the dropped kerb page of the Council’s website. The website states that works can only be carried out by approved contractors and that applicants must provide the contractor with a copy of these vehicle crossing conditions. Once the works are complete the Council will carry out a final inspection. If the work meets the conditions of crossing the Council will send a letter of final approval.
23. If the Council’s conditions of construction and use are outdated and do not accurately reflect how the Council determines applications for vehicle crossings this information should not appear on the Council’s website. Applicants should not be referred to it or required to construct a vehicle crossover in accordance with these conditions. The Council should take immediate action to address this.
24. The documentation currently available on the Council’s website clearly provides for a highways inspector to carry out a site visit and determine whether a vehicle crossing which does not meet the dimension requirements could be approved. This is misleading and raises false expectations that applications such as Mr X and Miss Y’s can be approved.
25. I consider the lack of clarity regarding the Council’s current procedures for determining vehicle crossing applications and the requirements it imposes is fault.
26. The Council has apologised to Mr X and Miss Y for its error and the inconvenience caused.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. The Council has agreed to review the information currently on its website regarding vehicle crossings and ensure any documents applicants are required to consult and abide by are accurate and up to date regarding the Council’s processes.
28. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

29. The Council’s failure to ensure the information available on its website regarding vehicle crossings is accurate and up to date regarding its processes is fault. This fault has caused Mr X and Miss Y an injustice for which the Council has apologised.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman