Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing an application for a vehicle crossover. The evidence suggests the Council reached its decision properly, so investigation is unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused to install a vehicle crossover because it had changed its guidance on acceptable materials for driveways and failed to update him before he installed his driveway. He says the Council has not accepted his driveway which he states he built in line with the conditions at the time. The Council will not consider a crossover unless Mr X brings his driveway in line with the current requirements, which will cost Mr X between £8,000 and 10,000.

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

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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied for a crossover and received approval on the condition that his driveway met specific requirements. In the application, Mr X confirmed that he would use hard surface to install his driveway, as required by the Council, but did not mention use of gravel.
7. The Council sent Mr X quotes to install a crossover. The quotes further reinforced that the parking area must be a ‘hard stand area’.
8. Mr X then built his driveway using a type of gravel despite previous guidance stating there are specific conditions for ‘hardstanding’. The Council inspected and stated it would not install the crossover as Mr X’s driveway was not hardstanding and he must bring driveway in line with current policy requirements that states it must be a ‘suitable hard surface’ and ‘not loose material’.
9. Mr X challenged the decision and stated the guidance did not exclude the use of gravel at the time of his application. The Council referred to the policy guidance in place at the time of the application, which stated that the parking area must be ‘hard standing’ and that Mr X acknowledged this in his application. Therefore, the Council stated it had no reason to believe Mr X would install driveway using gravel.
10. The policy also stated applicants should seek advice from the Council to ensure materials complied with requirements. Mr X did not do that.
11. The Council states it updated the wording for clarity, but its policy and decision-making had remained consistent. It says it has given all applicants without hardstanding driveways the same advice and Mr X is no exception. The Council had no reason to assume that Mr X would not use hard stand material.
12. The policy at the time of application was clear enough that there were specific conditions on the type of hardstanding that is accepted, and applicants should check with the Council. It is not the Council’s fault that Mr X did not do so. The Council adjusting the policy wording to be more specific does not mean that the earlier wording amounted to fault.
13. Therefore, the Council properly reached its decision to not install the crossover with the driveway in its current condition. I appreciate the decision was unwelcome to Mr X and he is entitled to disagree with the decision. However, that does not enable the Ombudsman to criticise the decision, as paragraph 3 explained.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault. The Council properly reached its decision not to install the crossover until Mr X’s driveway is in line with the Council’s policy requirements.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman