Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal of a vehicle crossing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr x complained about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a vehicle cross over. He says that the Council should consider his family circumstances and that an exception to its policy should be made.

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. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied for a vehicle crossing so that he could park his car inside his property boundary. He says that his location means that taking children from his parked car on the roadside is dangerous in traffic. The verge is also banked which risks family members slipping in wet weather.
7. The Council refused Mr X’s application because his property does not meet the requirement for a minimum 4.8 metres of space in front of the house. The Council’s guidance has included this requirement since 2018 because it considers less space than this a safety hazard to pedestrians and traffic.
8. Mr X says there are other driveways on his road which do not meet the requirements. The Council says historically approved substandard works will not be considered as mitigation when making decisions under the current policy. It may also take action on unauthorised constructions. We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal of a vehicle crossing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman