Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application to extend his footway crossing. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council refused his application to extend his footway crossing without giving good reasons. He believes the Council applied a secret policy which meant his application had no chance of success, as the decision does not follow its published policy. He wants the Council to approve his application or agreed to refund his £250 application fee.

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 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
6. Mr X lives on a residential street and has a footway crossing which provides access to a parking area at the front of his house. The existing crossing is flanked by a grass verge on one side and an area of planting on the other.
7. Mr X applied to extend his crossing in 2022 and the Council considered his application under its 2020 policy. The policy stated the Council may decide not to grant applications for footway crossings which would result in the removal of grassed or planted areas. But it allowed for the possibility of approving applications if the loss of verge would not have significant implications.
8. Mr X therefore applied to extend the crossing in the knowledge his application may be refused and at risk that his application fee of £250 would be wasted, as it was non-refundable.
9. However Mr X believes the Council’s approach to his application was unfair and did not comply with the published policy. He suggests the decision to refuse permission was automatic and did not take account of whether removal of the verge would have significant implications. He therefore considers his application had no prospect of success as the Council was following a secret, unpublished policy not to allow footway crossings if they required the removal of any amount of grassed or planted verge.
10. I have reviewed the information provided to Mr X and understand why he was concerned the Council had refused his application without properly considering it. However the information from his appeal shows the Council followed the published policy in deciding not to grant him permission to extend the crossing. and I have seen no evidence to suggest it has applied a secret policy to refuse all applications regardless of their impact.
11. The Council had regard to the question of whether the loss of verge would have significant implications and it considered it would. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with this decision but it is not for us to question it. The Council’s reasons focus on the impact of the loss of verge on the risk of surface water flooding, biodiversity and the loss of green space. Mr X considers that as the area of verge to be removed is relatively small the impact of its removal would be minor. But it is for the Council to decide what amounts to “significant implications” and it has decided the implications of removing the verge in this case are significant enough to warrant refusal.
12. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman