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

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a footway crossing. Mr X says both he and his wife are NHS keyworkers and they have three school aged children. They are unable to find parking when they return home and spend 20 minutes finding a parking spot. Mr X says his house is one of only two on the road without a footway crossing and so he does not feel he has been treated equally and fairly.

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 do not start an investigation if we decide 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 or may decide not to continue with 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))
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 footway crossing.
8. The Council refused Mr X’s application due to the grass verge in front of his property.
9. The Council’s footway crossing policy in place at the time of its decision states, at clause 1, “The Council is committed to the protection of grassed and planted areas and that the existence of such amenity features remains a consideration for refusing permission to construct a footway crossing. However, applications in such cases would be looked at on an individual basis in consultation with the Cabinet Member and local Ward Members and if the loss of verge would not have significant implications then some flexibility may be allowed.”
10. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. The Council considered the additional information Mr X provided in support of his application, however it upheld its original decision.
11. Whilst I note Mr X’s dissatisfaction with the Council’s decision, there is no sign of fault by the Council here. This is because it considered and decided Mr X’s application in line with the policy and procedure in place at the time, including seeking the views of other parties.
12. Mr X says all but two houses on his road already have a footway crossing. This is not relevant to the Council’s decision on his application and it is not a sign of fault by the Council. The Council’s policies and priorities will evolve and change over time for many reasons and older, historically granted, crossings may well not meet the criteria now and would no longer be granted. Applications need to meet the criteria and policy in place at the time the application is made.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman