Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s request for cross-pavement charging for an electric vehicle outside his home. There is insufficient evidence of a significant injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council declined to approve a cross-pavement Electric Vehicle (EV) charging solution so that he could charge an EV outside his home. He highlighted the Council committed to explore such options in its EV strategy 2019-2030.
2. Mr X also complained about the Council’s complaint-handling. He said it failed to answer his questions, wrongly considered the matter as a highways appeal rather than a complaint, and discriminated against him.
3. Mr X said this meant he was effectively excluded from EV ownership, as charging an EV would be too difficult and costly for him. He wanted the Council to properly assess his property for a cross-pavement charging gully, commit to action for cross-pavement charging trials and provide answers.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

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.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X was involved in a road traffic accident and suffered extensive injuries. He says he is still recovering and receiving therapies, and he does not know whether he will make a full recovery or how long this will take.
8. Mr X said his car was written off in the accident, and he wanted to replace it with an EV. Mr X does not have a driveway, and says his injuries mean he cannot walk to a public charging point. He also highlighted public charging would cost significantly more than using his own electric source.
9. Mr X asked the Council to consider installing a cross-pavement charging gully, to enable him to charge an EV outside his property. The Council declined. Mr X was dissatisfied and complained to us.
10. We will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the service provider. This means that we will normally only investigate a complaint where:
• the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the service provider, or
• there are continuous and ongoing instances of a lower-level injustice that remain unresolved over a long period of time.
11. Mr X indicates he may have purchased an EV following his request to the Council. Any such decision was made with full knowledge of the Council’s stance and his own current limitations. We could not say that any injustice Mr X claims to have experienced in the way of cost and inconvenience was caused by the Council.
12. While Mr X’s preference was for an EV, it was open to him to purchase a petrol vehicle instead. The Council’s actions have not denied him the right to own a vehicle or caused a significant injustice that would justify investigation by the Ombudsman. We will not investigate Mr X’s substantive complaint.
13. It is also not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint-handling in isolation if we are not investigating the substantive complaint. We will not investigate how the Council handled Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence the Council’s actions caused him an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman