Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s enforcement actions which prevent him from parking his car outside his house. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council erected physical barriers to prevent him from driving his car onto the driveway outside his house.
2. Mr X complains the Council only took this enforcement action after he applied for planning permission to regularise vehicular access to his driveway. He complains the Council refused to work with him to consider alternative designs.
3. Mr X also complains the Council’s approach to vehicular access and parking is inconsistent.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal or a government minister or started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6), as amended)
6. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
7. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Mr X lives very close to a pedestrian crossing. Mr X had been parking his car on his driveway for several years without the relevant planning permission. Mr X applied for planning permission to regularise vehicular access to the driveway outside his house. The Council did not grant Mr X’s planning application. Mr X appealed this decision, but his appeal was also denied. We do not have the power to investigate the Council’s decision not to grant planning permission because Mr X has used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspector.
11. After the Council became aware Mr X was driving over the footpath to access to his driveway it installed physical barriers to prevent him from driving his car over the footpath.
12. Mr X complained to the Council. Mr X asked the Council to work with him to consider alternative design options which could enable him to have vehicular access to his driveway even though he lives very close to a pedestrian crossing.
13. The Council has the power to take action to maintain the highway for the purpose of safeguarding persons using the highway (Highways Act 1980, section 66). Once the Council became aware that Mr X had previously been driving his car across the pavement to access his driveway it had the power to act for the purpose of safeguarding those using the highway. The highway authority ‘may provide and maintain (…) raised paving, pillars, walls, rails or fences as they think necessary for the purpose of safeguarding persons using the highway’ (section (2) 66 Highways Act 1980). There is not sufficient evidence of fault in how the Council undertook enforcement action to safeguard pedestrians at this location to warrant an investigation.
14. Each location is different and the Council must assess each location on its own merits. The Council’s enforcement action at other locations is not relevant to this complaint.
15. The Council is not obliged to discuss planning applications. Mr X can make a new planning application to the Council. Mr X could also choose to approach the Council for pre-planning advice should he wish to have further conversations about a new planning application.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s enforcement actions which prevent him from parking his car outside his house. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman