Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his application for a vehicle crossover. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the Council’s refusal of his application for a vehicle crossover. Mr B says the Council did not take relevant factors into account when making this decision including the Council’s own pledge to encourage residents to use electric vehicles.

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 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 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 Mr B and the Council. I have considered the Council’s Vehicle Crossover Application Criteria, which is available on the Council’s website. I will call this the Council’s policy. I have also viewed Mr B’s property on Google Streetview.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council initially told Mr B his application was refused because of concerns about visibility.
7. But, in response to Mr B’s appeal the Council reviewed the application and told Mr B it cannot allow a vehicle crossover into his front garden because he has a garage at the rear of his property.
8. The Council’s policy says an application will be refused if a resident has an existing access to a garage or hardstanding that accesses directly onto the public highway.
9. So, the Council’s decision to refuse Mr B’s application was in line with its policy.
10. Mr B says the garage is old and in a poor condition. Mr B also says the crossover would allow him to have an electric vehicle and would ease parking congestion. In addition, Mr B says other properties nearby with the same layout have been granted a crossover in the past.
11. But, these are not relevant considerations under the Council’s policy.
12. Also, it is not our role to tell the Council it should apply different criteria when considering such applications.
13. So, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into Mr B’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman