Summary: Mr and Mrs D complain the Council refused their application for a vehicle crossover. We have not found evidence of fault by the Council, have completed the investigation and do not uphold the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainants (whom I refer to as Mr and Mrs D) say the Council incorrectly refused their application to install a vehicle crossover outside their property in 2023.

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)
3. 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

4. I have considered the information provide by Mr and Mrs D. I asked the Council questions and examined its response.
5. Mr and Mrs D and the Council had opportunity to comment on the draft decision before I reached my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. On 7 December Mr and Mrs D applied to the Council for permission to install a vehicle crossover outside their home. On 12 December a Local Highway Steward carried out a site inspection and took photographs of the area outside the property. The photographs show a vehicle parked within the layby area beside the property. On 15 December the Council wrote to Mr and Mrs D. It would not consent to the vehicle crossover. It explained it did not allow crossovers where a property fronts onto a layby which is available to use as a parking space. This applied to the space outside their home and installation of a crossover would remove a parking space.
7. Mr and Mrs D subsequently complained to the Council and said the layby was on a taper outside their home. The Council replied in April 2024. It said no part of the crossover could be installed on the full width of a layby and this applied to the application.

What should have happened

8. When a resident wants to install a vehicle crossover they must apply to the Council for permission. A Highways Officer will assess the application and may carry out a site visit. The Council will not grant permission for a crossover where there is a parking layby outside the property. It may be possible to have crossover access over the taper of a layby (because this cannot be used as a parking space) but no part of the crossover must be on the full width of the layby.

Was there fault by the Council

9. I have not found evidence of fault by the Council. I understand Mr and Mrs D feel they should be permitted to install a crossover because the layby outside their home tapers. 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. The evidence shows me the Council has acted in line with its procedures. An Officer assessed the site and took supporting photographs showing the layby outside the property can accommodate a full parking space. The Council explained its decision to Mr and Mrs D. I appreciate Mr and Mrs D disagree with the Council’s decision, but it is a decision the Council has the right to reach where it finds evidence that approval of a crossover application would remove a viable parking space.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I have completed my investigation, found no fault by the Council and do not uphold the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman