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

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the Council’s refusal of his application for a vehicle crossover. Mr B says his neighbours have vehicle crossovers and he considers he has been treated unfairly.

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 and the Council’s vehicle crossover application criteria.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into this complaint. The Council’s decision is in line with the Council’s vehicle crossover application criteria. This says a second access will not be allowed if a property already has an existing access to a garage or hardstanding adjoining the property which has direct access to the public highway. Mr B’s property has this existing access.
6. The Council is not at fault for applying its current criteria to Mr B’s application even if neighbouring properties may have been granted permission under previous vehicle crossover policies.
7. So, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman