Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to refund a vehicle crossover application fee. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council has refused to refund the £390 fee he paid for his vehicle crossover application. Mr B says the Council promptly advised him in three short telephone calls within minutes of him putting in his application that he would need to apply for planning permission and make changes to his off street parking area. Mr B says he had misunderstood these requirements and based on this information he decided not to proceed with his application. Mr B says the Council is wrong to not offer any refund of the application fee he paid.

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 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 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr B. I have also considered information on the Council’s website and have viewed Mr B’s property on Google Streetview.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council’s policy is the vehicle crossover application fee is non-refundable. It was for the Council to decide its policy on vehicle crossover application refunds. Many other local authorities operate the same policy. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to say the Council should operate a different policy.
6. So, the Council’s decision not to offer a refund to Mr B is in line with the Council’s policy. Also, the Council’s website makes it clear that the application fee is non-refundable.
7. Mr B says there was not enough information on the Council’s website to cover the particular requirements for his property. Mr B says he would like to extend the existing dropped kerb for his property to stop dangerous street parking which makes it difficult to use his driveway safely.
8. But, I find there is nothing particularly unusual about Mr B’s application which is not covered by information on the Council’s website.
9. The Council’s vehicle crossover policy, available on the Council’s website, sets out the requirements for the off street parking area. The policy clearly says these requirements apply for extended dropped kerb applications, which is what Mr B applied for. Also, the Council’s website clearly says planning permission is needed for properties on classified roads, and provides a list of classified roads.
10. So, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman