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

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s criteria for approving his application for a vehicle crossing. He says the advertised process did not contain details about types of kerbing required and that the requirement is unnecessarily expensive and has not been required by some other residents in his area who have used more basic features.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s responses. I have also considered the Council’s vehicle crossing procedure.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied for a vehicle crossing in place of an existing one at his home. He wished to retain some features but when the Council issued its specifications in November 2022 he disagreed with the restriction on what he was to be allowed to build. The Council advised him that it could not allow him to make any appeal until he had provided the application fee which he did in early 2023.
6. Since that time Mr X had challenged the Council’s procedure and says that the use of different kerbing would incur unnecessary additional cost and that the crossing size limits the benefits of an extension. He referred to other crossings in his area which exceeded the conditions imposed on his application.
7. The Council rejected Mr X’s appeal in August 2023 and told him that other crossings were historical and approved under different earlier procedures. If he had evidence of crossings made without meeting the standards it may investigate but had not had resource previously to investigate all approvals.
8. The vehicle crossing provision is not a statutory process, highway authorities develop their own policies and procedures for highway and street access. The Council published the basic size and location requirements of its procedure on its website but this is an overview of the process. Any technical details specific to the site will be included once the fee is paid and the site has been inspected. The Council expects the technical aspects to be considered at the discretion of its officers who will approve or refuse the application accordingly.
9. The Ombudsman is 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, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. The Council told Mr X what the requirements were for the crossing and it is for him to decide whether he accepts the conditions or decides not to go ahead with the proposals.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a vehicle crossing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman