Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Ms X’s request for a vehicle crossing. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has refused her application for a vehicle crossover (VC).
2. She is a Blue Badge holder and says that without being able to park close to home she struggles to go about her daily life.
3. She would like the Council to confirm whether an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) was undertaken and explain why her application was refused when neighbours already have dropped kerbs.

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.

(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)
6. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. Ms X made an application for a VC at her property. The Council rejected the application but offered an alternative solution.
10. Ms X said the alternative would not meet her needs. She explained she had additional needs and complained that neighbouring properties had been given permission for VCs.
11. The Council explained neighbouring properties were adapted at an earlier date, under a different policy. It was aware of Ms X’s additional needs and provided a clear explanation of how Ms X’s application was not in line with current policy, regardless of her circumstances.
12. I have reviewed the Council’s policy and its explanation of its decision clearly aligns with its policy. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision to refuse Ms X’s request for a VC.
13. Ms X says the Council has not confirmed if it carried out an EIA. We would not necessarily expect a council to complete an EIA for individual applications. The Ombudsman also cannot decide if the Council has breached the Equality Act. I understand Ms X says she needs a VC so she can park close to her home. But the Council has suggested an alternative solution to allow this.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman