Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her vehicle crossover application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a vehicle crossover and about its policy not to allow for short frontage agreements to be put in place.

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X applied for a vehicle crossover to the front of her property. The Council refused Miss X’s application because her property frontage did not meet the minimum size criteria set out in its vehicle crossover policy.
8. Miss X says the Council has not considered her particular circumstances. She says the Council should review its policy to allow short frontage agreements on a case to case basis. Miss X says several local properties have crossovers in place, agreed under previous policies and she feels she is being penalised. She says if the proposed installation of double yellow lines on her road goes ahead it will make it very difficult for residents without off street parking.
9. The Council has updated its crossover policy since it decided Miss X’s application. It confirmed the application would also be refused under its current policy because the property frontage does not meet the current minimum size criteria for a crossover.
10. The Council said a decision on whether to install double yellow lines on the road has not yet been made. It provided Miss X with a link to provide comments on the proposal during the consultation process.
11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. It considered and decided Miss X’s application in line with the eligibility criteria set out in its published policy at the time of her application which apply to all applications. This says that applications which do not meet the current minimum size requirements will be refused and that short frontage agreements will not be entered into.
12. The presence of previously agreed and installed crossovers in nearby properties is not relevant to the Council’s decision to refuse Miss X’s application as they would have been agreed in line with the policy in place at the time. Applications need to meet the criteria in place at the time of the application. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say the Council should have a policy in place which would favour Miss X’s circumstances and we cannot question the Council’s decisions where, as here, there is no sign of fault in the way in which it was reached.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman