Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a vehicle crossover. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a vehicle crossover.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Council’s Vehicle Cross Over (VCO) Application Criteria (October 2021).
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mrs X applied for a vehicle crossover to the front of her property.
9. The Council refused Mrs X’s application and upheld its decision at appeal.
10. It explained Miss X’s application does not meet the current eligibility criteria as set out in its published policy on three grounds. Firstly, it does not meet the minimum size criteria as her property frontage is smaller than the minimum size required. Secondly, it is within 10m of a busy junction and finally, Mrs X already has access to a driveway and garage next to her property. Where this is the case, the Council will not grant a second vehicle access.
11. Mrs X says there are many local properties with crossovers which do not meet the Council’s current criteria and she questions why these have been agreed but her application has not. Mrs X says if she parks on the road in front of her home it will cause difficulties with her neighbours as it will be an obstruction to drivers and pedestrians.
12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. Mrs X’s application has been considered, decided and refused in line with the current eligibility criteria set out in the Council’s current published policy. Miss X’s application does not meet the eligibility criteria on three separate grounds.
13. The presence of local, historically granted and installed dropped kerbs is not relevant to the Council’s decision on Mrs X’s application and does not indicate fault by the Council. Policies will change and evolve over time for many reasons including improved consideration of safety concerns. Vehicle crossovers granted under previous policies may well not meet the current criteria and so would not be granted if they were applied for now. As they met the criteria at the time they are not required to be removed. Mrs X’s application needs to meet the current criteria to be granted.
14. We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to say the Council should have reached a different decision where, as here, there is no sign of fault in the way in which the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman