Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s procedure for vehicle crossover applications which he says is unfair, expensive and inflexible. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council charging a non-refundable fee for vehicle crossover applications. He also says the policy is unfair because it is not specific about what will be approved and that it is inflexible in not allowing the householder to mitigate the cost by carrying out their own works.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s policy on vehicle crossings and charges. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says he applied for an extension to his vehicle crossing but was dissatisfied with the outcome. He was told he could only have an additional width of 60cm and that he was charged £195 for the fee which is not refundable. He also said that his negotiations about reducing the cost by doing some of the preparatory works himself were rejected.
5. Mr X asked the Council to justify the charge it makes and explain why it needed to check if the pavement was previously reinforced when it should have records of this.
6. The Council told him that the fees for applications are approved annually by council committee and that he has been charged the same as other applicants. The administration cost means the application fee is not refundable should it be abandoned. The Council told him that the work is carried out by its approved contractor and that it is not possible to negotiate parts of the contract.
7. The Council told Mr X that it is necessary to check the construction of the footway to see if it is reinforced because it is not a requirement to keep records of all historical works to footways. It charges for the inspection because this is not a normal part of highway maintenance and it must be borne by the applicant.
8. The Council charges for highway works according to a scheme of fees which is approved by council committee annually. The charges are similar to other councils in England and this includes the non-refundable application fee.
9. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. If there has been no flaw in the process through which a decision has been taken the Ombudsman has no power to challenge the merits of the decision itself.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman