Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not dealt properly with an appeal regarding a footway crossing application. The Council is not at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has not dealt properly with an appeal regarding a footway crossing application because it has not made a decision on the merits of the circumstances.
2. Mr X says he has been denied a footway crossing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
4. 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

5. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered documents he provided. I considered supporting documents provided by the Council.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened?

7. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
8. Mr X applied for a footway crossing. The Council refused his application.
9. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. The Council refused his appeal.
10. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found that the Council fettered its discretion and did not consider the individual circumstances of the application. The Council reconsidered the appeal and again refused it.

Analysis

11. Mr X’s appeal regarding his footway crossing application raised the following factors:
• loss of verge;
• disproportionate burden of flood defence;
• permeable paving materials use;
• no flood records;
• planning application granted;
• lack of parking causing distress for Mr X’s family with medical conditions;
• improved road safety;
• support of all ward councillors;
• an electric vehicle charging point; and
• no intent to extend crossing width later.
12. I have reviewed the Council’s response to Mr X’s appeal. In considering and responding to his appeal the Council addressed all the issues raised by Mr X.
13. Although Mr X does not agree with the Council’s decision, the evidence shows its decision is based on a consideration of the merits of the circumstances. This is therefore a decision the Council is entitled to make. This is not fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I have not found fault by the Council. I have now completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman