Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council refusing his vehicle crossover application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains, in early 2024, the Council changed its vehicle crossover policy without any public consultation. He complains the Council introduced the changes straight away and these changes restrict applications who are within 10 metres of a junction. Mr X says the Council did not give him the chance to apply under the previous 2019 criteria and there is a lack of consistency from Council officers about when to exercise discretion.
2. Mr X complains the Council refused his application. He says the Council has treated him unfairly and he is concerned the Council may have treated him differently to a neighbour based on race. Mr X says the neighbour, with a similar property frontage, successfully applied under the previous scheme, whereas Mr X lost the opportunity to apply under the same scheme and was not treated in the same way. He would like the Council to review his application and make a decision that takes into consideration the precedent set by his neighbour’s successful application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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 and the Council’s Vehicle Crossover Policy and Application Pack (in place since February 2024).

Back to top

My assessment

7. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So, we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
8. The Council refused Mr X’s application because the proposed vehicle crossover was within 10 metres of a road junction. A Council Officer carried out a site visit as part of its review of Mr X’s application. The Officer noted the application was for a corner property at a junction. Based on the Officer’s measurements, the frontage of the property was within the 10-metre rule to a point where a crossover could not be fitted without substantial encroachment inside of the 10-metre zone. For these reasons, the Officer decided an exception could not be made. The Council reviewed its decision following Mr X’s complaint but upheld the original decision. It provided clear reasons for this with reference to its policy. We will not investigate this complaint. Its decision appears in line with its policy and so we cannot question the outcome. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify investigating.
9. Mr X says the Council previously granted permission for a crossover to a neighbour with a similar property frontage. It is not clear whether that permission was given under a different Council policy and whether the 10-metre rule did not apply. If an applicant received their permission due to a council fault, that does not provide a basis for us to recommend the council make the same decision for others. We could not order a council repeat a previous fault which goes against their policy to give someone else another incorrectly permitted crossover. Rather, council officers should apply the current policy when making their decisions. As the Council’s decision appears to be in line with the 2024 policy, we have no basis to recommend the Council reconsiders its decision in any way. So, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome or the outcome Mr X wants.
10. Mr X’s complaint about the changes made to the Council’s vehicle crossover policy in February 2024 is late because he did not complain to the Ombudsman about this matter until November 2025. I have seen no good reasons why Mr X could not have complained sooner about this matter. In any case, the Council explained it would have refused Mr X’s application based on its previous policy because this also contained the same 10-metre rule, which it carried over in its updates. It is unlikely Mr X missed out on the chance to successfully apply under the terms of the previous policy. We will not investigate this part of the complaint. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome for Mr X.
11. It is not a proportionate use of resources to investigate the Council’s appeal and complaint handling alone when we are not investigating the substantive matters. So, we will not investigate.

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council refusing his vehicle crossover application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman