Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal of his application for a vehicle crossing at his home. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed handling his request for a vehicle crossing at his home. He said it then failed to take into account relevant information when deciding to refuse the request. He said he suffered frustration from the delay. As he cannot park on his property, his children are denied a safer way of getting into the family car and the car is less secure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses to him through its complaints procedure.
5. Mr X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s policy

6. The Council has the power to allow construction of domestic vehicle crossings. The Council has a policy for handling applications for crossings which was revised in April 2019. The current policy says the Council may refuse an application in a controlled parking zone where:

• the resulting loss of on street parking would put local residents at inconvenience; and
• there would be too high an impact on parking stress in the area (parking stress is where more drivers seek to park on the street than the available kerb space allows).

What happened

7. Mr X lives in a road where many people already have vehicle crossings. The road is in a controlled parking zone. There is a permit holders parking scheme with parking bays marked out on the road. There are parking bays outside Mr X’s house.
8. In February 2020 Mr X applied to the Council for a vehicle crossing so he could park on his own land in front of his house. In November 2020 the Council refused his request, saying it would reduce the number of parking bays on the road.
9. Mr X appealed against the decision and the Council considered this at Stage 1 and Stage 2 of its complaints procedure. During the complaints procedure a Council officer visited the site.
10. The Council acknowledged it delayed dealing with Mr X’s request, apologised for the delay and said it had worked to prevent recurrence of such delays. But it said it had handled the request properly, in line with its policy. The Council said there was a high demand for on street parking in the area. It explained why a vehicle crossing at that point would result in the loss of two on street parking spaces. So it did not uphold Mr X’s complaint about the decision.
11. Mr X said the Council failed to take into account his points that only one parking bay need be lost, spaces in adjoining roads could be turned into residents’ parking bays and the car usage on the day of the visit was not a true reflection of car movements because of the COVID-19 lockdown.

Analysis

12. The Council did delay handling Mr X’s application. The Council’s apology is an appropriate remedy for any frustration caused to Mr X by the delay.
13. The Council’s responses to Mr X show it considered the parking needs in the area and the specific site outside Mr X’s house. It related these to its vehicle crossing policy and made a decision the policy allows it to make. The Council would have been aware of the traffic implications of the lockdown when making the site visit.
14. We should not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman