Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a vehicle crossing extension. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for an extension to his vehicle crossing. He says the refusal was based on the fact that there is a highway tree on site, and it is dead and should be removed.

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.

(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. Mr X applied to the Council to have his existing vehicle access extended. There is a mature tree on the site at present and Mr X said it would need to be removed because it attracts rubbish and is dead.
7. The Council rejected his application. It says the tree is healthy and is too mature to survive being transplanted. Its policy is to preserve mature amenity trees, and this takes precedence over vehicle crossings.
8. Mr X used the Council’s internal appeal procedure to challenge the decision. A panel of councillors considered the appeal but upheld the officers’ view that it should be refused.
9. 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. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a vehicle crossing extension. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman