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 the Council refused his vehicle crossover application solely because there is a speed hump in front of his property. Mr B says this new policy only came into effect two days before he made his application. Mr B says the Council has not given proper consideration to the disability-related safeguarding needs of his son, who needs a crossover to safely enter and leave their property. Mr B says the Council’s refusal of his application puts his son at risk and he would like the Council to re-assess his application.

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))

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr B and information on the Council’s website.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Local highways authorities do not have a statutory requirement to provide a vehicle crossover.
7. When assessing a request for a vehicle crossover, local highways authorities are mainly concerned with the space available for off-street parking and the impact on the highway.
8. Property occupation and vehicle ownership changes over time and ultimately local highways authorities must be satisfied that use of a vehicle crossover would not have an unacceptable impact on use of the highway. This means local highways authority vehicle crossover policies generally focus on the location and layout of the application site rather than the particular needs of the household which has asked for a crossover.
9. The Council refused Mr B’s application because there is a speed hump outside his property. The Council’s decision is in line with the Council’s vehicle crossover policy which says an application will be refused in such circumstances. The Council has explained that this policy was introduced following multiple incidents involving vehicle damage and complaints where crossovers were constructed next to speed humps.
10. In response to Mr B’s complaint, the Council addressed Mr B’s particular need for a crossover and explained why it has made this decision.
11. The Council’s decision was in line with its policy. It is not our role to tell the Council it should have made a different decision, or that it should use different criteria when assessing vehicle crossover applications.
12. So, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into Mr B’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. 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