Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Mr X’s application for a vehicle cross over as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision on his vehicle cross-over application. Mr X complains the approved design is inappropriate for his property and will not allow him to access his drive with both family cars. Mr X wants the Council to approve a more appropriate design.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Background

6. Mr X is unhappy with the design approved by the Council for a vehicle cross over at his property. Mr X feels the design does not provide a separate access to his property, or a clear demarcation between pedestrian access and vehicle access points. Mr X says the curved design approved by the Council means he will not be able to access his drive with both family cars without driving off the cross-over on to the adjacent grass. Mr X considers the Council’s vehicle cross over policy does not justify the design that has been approved, which Mr X considers is awkward.
7. In its responses to Mr X, the Council advised that it is satisfied that the design is safe for pedestrians and confirmed that the cross over is for Mr X’s use, not his neighbour’s, as the neighbour does not have permissions under the Highways Act 1980 to traverse the verge with a vehicle into their property. The Council explained the shape of the cross over is to ensure more verge area is retained to act as a natural soakaway and said that it considers the cross over does allow for safe entry and exit of two vehicles onto private property.

Back to top

My assessment

8. We can only be critical of a decision by a council if there is clear evidence of fault in the way it was made. We cannot pursue a matter just because a complainant disagrees with that decision. The Council has explained why it is satisfied the cross over design is appropriate. Having had regard to the Council’s vehicle cross over policy, I do not consider there is sufficient evidence of fault in how it came to this decision, to justify our further involvement.
9. The Council’s policy requires that proper drainage is provided by a householder, of its car hard standing, before a vehicle cross over can be constructed. The policy has a strong emphasis on explaining why water run off onto the highway needs to be avoided, to prevent flooding incidents and other damage to the environment. While its policy makes no specific reference to a scenario such as Mr X’s, it seems to me that the Council has taken account of the general drainage issues laid out in its policy in coming to its decision on Mr X’s cross over. The Council is at liberty to do this, and I cannot see grounds for us to be critical of this decision.
10. The Council has addressed Mr X’s safety concerns and clarified that his neighbour does not have rights to use the cross over. The Council is satisfied that the design does allow access for two vehicles on to private property. That Mr X’s car parking area at his home may not accommodate this does not mean that the Council is at fault in its decision making.
11. I recognise why Mr X is disappointed with the design the Council will allow but we will not investigate as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman