Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a vehicle crossover. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a vehicle crossover and about its handling of his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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 applied to the Council for a vehicle crossover.
8. The Council refused Mr X’s application because his property frontage does not meet the minimum depth size criteria of 4.8 metres, as set out in the Council’s current vehicle crossover policy. Mr X’s property frontage is only 3.9 metres deep.
9. Mr X complained to the Council about its decision. He said his property frontage is wide enough to enable him to park his car sideways. Without a crossover he is unable to charge his hybrid car at home or buy an electric car. The majority of his neighbours have vehicle crossovers, granted under previous policies, and there are difficulties parking locally. Cars are sometimes damaged by learner drivers as there is a driving school locally. Mr X acknowledged his application does not meet the current criteria but said the Council had not considered his mitigating circumstances. He also asked the Council to review its policy.
10. Whilst I acknowledge Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision, I see no sign of fault in how it considered his application. It has considered and decided it in line with the criteria set out in its current policy which apply to all applicants. It has clearly explained why it has refused Mr X’s application and why the minimum size requirement applies. We are not an appeal body and we cannot question the merits of a council’s decision where, as here, there is no sign of fault in the process by which it was made.
11. The presence of historically agreed and installed crossovers locally which would not be granted under the current policy are not relevant to Mr X’s application now. Policies are amended and changed over time for many reasons including improved safety considerations. The Council has told Mr X it intends to review the current policy later this year and it will likely include options relating to electric vehicle charging. It will be open to Mr X to make a fresh application if he considers he meets any amended criteria.
12. Mr X also complained about the Council’s handling of his complaint. He says the Council did not respond on time; mis-dated a letter; failed to provide information he requested and did not respond to all the points he raised in his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council as it considered and decided his crossover application in line with its current policy and eligibility criteria.
14. We will not investigate the complaint handling issues Mr X raised. This is because it is not a good use of our limited public resources to do so where we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman