Summary: Mr Z 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 Z’s application for a vehicle access licence. The Council was at fault for the way it communicated with Mr Z and for not picking up that his driveway did not meet the minimum size the Council permitted for a parking space earlier. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr Z.

The complaint

1. Mr Z complains the Council:
• Failed to properly consider his application for a dropped kerb when he had planning permission for this.
• Failed to respond to his emails about this.
• Did not tell him what the minimum parking dimensions were before he applied for planning permission and for a Vehicle Access Licence and this led to the Council’s refusal to grant him a Vehicle Access Licence.
2. Mr Z says he will not be able to access his front drive and park a vehicle on his property as he has no licence 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 Z and the Council. I considered the information on the Council’s website about Vehicle Access Licences. I sent a draft of this decision to Ms Z and the Council and considered comments received in response.

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 Z lives in a residential area. Mr Z applied for planning permission to use his front garden as a parking space this included carrying out some works to the front garden and installing a dropped kerb.
10. The Council granted planning permission for Mr Z’s application. To carry out the modifications to the public highway outside of his property, Mr Z needed to apply for a VAL to get permission to modify the pavement.
11. Mr Z applied for a VAL in early 2023. At the time of applying Mr Z said the Council’s website said he needed access of 4.6 meters along his front garden and a copy of the planning permission he had received. Mr Z said it did not say anything about the size of the parking space he needed to have.
12. Several weeks after applying for a VAL, the Council rejected Mr Z’s application. The Council said the space Mr Z wanted to use to park his vehicle did not meet the minimum space requirements for residential parking. The Council said Mr Z’s space needed to be 6 meters by 3 meters. The Council agreed to refund Mr Z’s application fee.
13. After receiving the Council’s decision, Mr Z emailed the Council and asked if he could appeal the decision to refuse a VAL. Mr Z said he thought he had already received approval for his parking space after the Council granted planning permission.
14. Mr Z chased up the Council for a response in early March 2023. Mr Z still had not received a response from the Council in late March 2023, so he made a formal complaint. Mr Z said:
• The Council had not responded to his previous emails about the refusal to grant him a VAL.
• The Council’s website did not mention anything about the minimum parking space requirements and it was for this reason that the Council refused his application. Mr Z said the Council’s website said he needed planning permission and access of no more than 4.6 meters.
15. In April 2023, the Council responded to Mr Z’s complaint. The Council apologised for not responding to Mr Z’s emails. The Council said there was no appeals process for its decision to not grant a VAL. The Council said it decided Mr Z’s space was not big enough as it did not meet the Council’s minimum standards for parking, so did not issue a VAL. The Council said the planning permission Mr Z received allowed him to change the use of his front garden but did not allow him access to the public highway without a VAL.
16. In late June 2023, Mr Z asked the Council to consider his complaint at the next stage. Mr Z questioned why the Council would approve planning permission and then reject his application for a VAL as the Council’s highways authority had already considered the matter as part of the planning application. Mr Z said other Council’s allowed parking spaces which were the same size as his proposed space. He disputed the space in his front garden would be too small to park and safely open car doors.
17. In early August 2023, the Council provided its final response to Mr Z’s complaint. The Council said:
• The planning permission Mr Z applied for was a householder application and Mr Z would needed to have applied for a full planning application for works outside his residential property.
• The planning permission Mr Z received approved the change of use of his front garden only and did not give him permission to carry out works to the public highway. The Council said Mr Z needed a VAL to carry out works to the public highway.
• The parking space on the plan Mr Z submitted in his application for a VAL showed that his space did not meet the minimum space standards for a parking space. The Council used the wrong measurements when responding to Mr Z on this point.
• It was not clear whether Mr Z consulted with the Council’s planning team or street works team before sending his planning application or VAL. The Council said it was up to Mr Z to decide how much he wanted to engage with the Council before putting in his planning application. In light of his comments it was looking at creating a guidance document for the VAL section of its website to help residents who were considering applying for a VAL.
18. Mr Z remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

19. When considering complaints, we may not act like an appeal body. We cannot decide whether Mr Z 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.
20. I do not consider the Council was at fault for its decision not to grant Mr Z a VAL. The Council explained that Mr Z’s space did not meet its minimum parking space size requirements and this was its reasoning for not granting a VAL. I recognise Mr Z was frustrated by this decision especially as he had obtained planning permission, however this was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
21. The Council did in its response to Mr Z’s complaint get the measurements of his proposed parking space wrong. I do not however consider this has or would influence the Council’s decision not to grant Mr Z a VAL. This is because the parking space in his proposed plans was smaller than the minimum size the Council allowed for a parking space.
22. It was clear that Mr Z believed he would be able install a vehicle crossover point after receiving planning permission. When Mr Z 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 Z expected that he would be able to carry out the works to the public highway.
23. The Council did not tell Mr Z 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 planning application Mr Z wanted to modify a public highway. Had the Council done this it could have managed Mr Z’s expectations better.
24. Mr Z also complained the Council did not specify what the minimum size it allowed for parking spaces was and he had no knowledge of this when he applied for a VAL. At the time of Mr Z’s application the Council did not provide this information. It would have been helpful for Mr Z to have known this before applying for a VAL and he could have avoided the frustration of applying for a VAL which the Council was not going to grant.
25. The Council has already refunded Mr Z 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 Z.
26. The Council was at fault for not responding to Mr Z’s emails after it refused his application for a VAL. This caused him frustration and distress. If the Council had responded to Mr Z when he initially contacted it, the Council could have attempted to address his concerns at this much earlier stage. As it did not, Mr Z made a formal complaint to the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. Within one month of my final decision, the Council agreed to carry out the following:
1. Provide Mr Z 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 Z £200 to recognise the time and trouble he experienced in pursuing the matter and the frustration caused to him.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman