Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal of the complainant’s application for a vehicle crossover. There is nothing to suggest fault in how the Council considered the complainant’s application.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained the Council wrongly refused his application for a vehicle crossover (VCO). He says the Council approved other applications for VCOs near his home which did not meet the required criteria. Mr B believes the Council should approve his application.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not provide a right of appeal against a council’s decision. We cannot question whether a 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 that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

Final decision

5. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we are unlikely to find the Council’s decision to refuse his application was affected by fault. Regardless of its admitted errors in how it dealt with other applications, the Council correctly assessed Mr B’s application. It refused the application because it did not meet the required criteria.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman