Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to grant him a vehicle access licence, meaning he has no vehicle access to his front driveway. The Council was not at fault for how it considered Mr X’s application but was at fault for not picking up that his driveway did not meet the minimum size the Council permitted for a parking space earlier. The Council was also at fault for the time it took to respond to Mr X’s communication about this. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the frustration caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• Failed to properly consider his application for a dropped kerb when he had planning permission for this; and
• Failed to respond to his emails about this.
2. Mr X says because of the Council’s failings he has spent time and trouble in chasing this with the Council. He cannot park his vehicle in his front garden as he has no licence to modify the pavement to make a vehicle crossover point.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of this investigation I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I considered the information on the Council’s website about Vehicle Access Licences. I sent a draft of this decision to Mr X and the Council and considered the responses received.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

7. It is an offence to drive over the pavement or verge where there is no proper vehicle crossover (also known as a dropped kerb). A person can apply to the Council for a Vehicle Access Licence (VAL) for authorisation to build a crossover and if granted the Council will enter into a legal agreement with the person. Some crossovers will also need planning permission. This includes vehicle crossovers from a classified road.
8. The Council’s requirements for residential parking standards say a space must be 6 meters by 3 meters for spaces where parallel parking is required.

What happened

9. Mr X lives in a residential area. Mr X applied for planning permission to use his front garden as a parking space and he wanted to have a dropped kerb so he could access it. He also applied for planning permission to extend the existing dropped kerb outside his property.
10. The Council granted planning permission for both applications. To carry out the modifications to the public highway outside his property, Mr X needed to apply for a VAL to get permission to modify the pavement.
11. Mr X applied for a VAL and received a decision from the Council in February 2023 which refused to grant him a VAL. The Council said the space Mr X wanted to use to park his vehicle did not meet the minimum space requirements for residential parking. The Council said Mr X’s space needed to be 6 meters by 3 meters.
12. Mr X emailed the Council in February 2023 as he was unhappy with the Council’s decision. Mr X:
• Asked why the Council had approved planning permission but then did not grant a licence to carry out the works.
• Asked if the Council would take action against those residents who already had their kerbs dropped and did not have spaces which met the minimum space requirements.
• Said he had a small car and asked what width a car needed to be to ensure easy access out of the car.
• Said it was unfair the Council had previously approved the work and had now refused his application at the licence stage.
13. Mr X did not receive a response from the Council so chased this up in late March 2023.
14. As Mr X had not received a response from the Council he made a complaint in early May 2023. Mr X said he had not received a response from the Council to his previous emails. Mr X said the Council had changed its space requirements for parking which meant it refused his application for a VAL.
15. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in late May 2023. The Council said it refused his application for a VAL as it had health and safety concerns as the space outside his property was below the Council’s minimum requirements for a parking space. The Council said the planning permission did not entitle him to a VAL.
16. Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at the next stage. The Council provided its final response to Mr X in October 2023. The Council said:
• Both of Mr X’s planning applications were householder planning applications. This meant the planning permission only gave him permission to change the use of the private frontage of his property, not the layout of the public highway. The Council said Mr X would needed to have made a full planning application to modify the public highway.
• The approval of planning permission did not guarantee the Council would grant Mr X a VAL
• It did not consider granting a VAL on the basis Mr X had a smaller vehicle as he could use a larger vehicle in the future or a future occupant could have a larger vehicle.
• It assessed applications for VALs on a case by case basis, so did not look at other properties which the Council had granted a VAL to in the past. The Council said it would not relook at properties which had a VAL granted under previous rules but would not be approved under the current rules.
• It had refunded Mr X’s fees for the application and was looking at creating a guidance document for the VAL section of its website to help residents who were considering applying for a VAL.
17. Mr X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

18. When considering complaints, we may not act like an appeal body. We cannot decide whether Mr X should receive a VAL, this is a decision for the Council. We can only question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Council’s officers, if there was fault in the decision making.
19. In this case there was no fault in the Council’s decision making. The Council considered its policy that the hardstanding area in front of Mr X’s property where he wanted to park was less than the minimum size the Council permitted for a parking space. The Council explained it had health and saftey concerns about the size of the space despite Mr X having planning permission. While I can see Mr X was frustrated by the Council’s refusal to grant him a VAL given he already had planning permission, this was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
20. The Council was not clear about the process to put in a dropped kerb. From the correspondence, it was clear that Mr X believed he would receive a VAL after getting planning permission. When Mr X applied for planning permission the Highways department should have picked up on the fact the area of space in front of his property was less than the minimum size the Council allowed for a parking space. Failure to do so was fault. The fact the Highways department raised no concerns during the planning application, meant Mr X expected that he would be able to carry out the works to the public highway.
21. When Mr Z applied for the VAL the Council’s website did not say what the minimum size the Council allowed for a parking space was. This would have been helpful for Mr X and he could have avoided the frustration of applying for a VAL which the Council was not going to grant. The Council also did not tell Mr X at any stage that the planning permission he applied for was not the correct permission needed to carry out works on a public highway. It was clear from the application Mr X wanted to modify a public highway. Had the Council done this it could have managed Mr X’s expectations better.
22. The Council has already refunded Mr X the application fees for the VAL and has updated the information on its website to include the minimum size the Council permits for a residential parking space. This is welcomed and goes some way to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X.
23. The Council was at fault for not responding to Mr X’s emails after it refused his application for a VAL. This caused him frustration and distress. If the Council had responded to Mr X when he initially contacted it, the Council could have attempted to address his concerns at this much earlier stage. As it did not, Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

24. Within one month of my final decision, the Council agreed to carry out the following:
1. Provide Mr X with a written apology for:
1. Failing to respond to his emails following the VAL decision.
2. Not making him aware about the requirements needed to obtain a VAL.
3. Not picking up the fact his driveway did not meet minimum size the Council permitted for a parking space during the planning process.
2. Pay Mr X £200 to recognise the time and trouble he experienced in pursuing the matter and the frustration caused to him.
25. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation and found the Council was at fault which caused some injustice. The Council has agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman