Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a vehicle crossover. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a vehicle crossover to the front of his property.

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 or continue 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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X applied for a vehicle crossover to the front of his property. The Council refused the application because Mr X’s property frontage does not meet the minimum size requirements as set out in its published policy for granting of a crossover. Mr X’s property frontage is one metre short of the minimum size requirement set out in the policy.
8. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision and provided additional information about his family’s circumstances and his reasons for wanting a crossover installed. He also referred to other local properties with small property frontages which have had vehicle crossovers installed. The Council considered the information Mr X provided but upheld its original decision to refuse the application in line with its policy. It explained it considers applications according to its policy and not the applicant’s personal circumstances.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council here. It has considered, decided and refused Mr X’s application in line with its current policy. Mr X’s property frontage falls significantly short of the minimum size requirements set out in the policy and so his application has been refused. We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to question the Council’s decisions where, as here, there is no sign of fault in the way in which it was reached. The presence of historically granted and installed dropped kerbs locally, which may also not meet the current criteria is not relevant to the Council’s decision on Mr X’s application now. Applications need to meet the current criteria in order to succeed. The Council also confirmed Mr X’s application would also have been refused under its previous policy as it would not have met the minimum size criteria in place then either.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman