Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Electric Vehicle charging. This is because any injustice suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused to allow him to apply for a Section 50 licence for a flush-mounted EV charging cable gully.
2. He says the Council refused because they had no policy.
3. He says he has incurred on going financial costs, practical inconvenience and his ability to transfer to lower-emission transport has been limited.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. After Mr X complained to the Ombudsman, the Council issued a policy about home and on-street charging via a cross pavement channel.
9. This policy does not permit cross pavement cable channels, reflecting current safety, accessibility and liability considerations.
10. Our role is not to ask whether we agree or disagree with the decisions a Council reaches. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
11. The Council has a right and a duty to maintain the safety of the highway. It is progressing a pilot of cross pavement channel installations to see if it can find a safe and effective solution. It is unlikely that investigation will find fault in the Council’s decision making.
12. If the Ombudsman asked the Council to reconsider Mr X’s application now it has a policy, it would still not be granted. Our investigation cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome.
13. Mr X may reapply when applications for the pilot scheme open.
14. I have considered whether Mr X suffered a significant justice in the time between his application being refused and the Council implementing a policy. The injustice suffered during this time would not be significant enough to justify our investigation as even if a policy had been in place, permission would not have been granted to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman