Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a second vehicle crossover. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a second vehicle crossover to his property.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Council’s current vehicle cross over application criteria.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X applied for a second vehicle crossover on his property. The Council refused the application in line with its published application criteria. This states that in order to maintain as much on-street parking as possible, a second access is highly likely to be refused unless significant safety or community benefit can be identified.
9. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision and provided additional information in support of his appeal. The Council considered the additional information but upheld its original decision to refuse the application as it decided there was insufficient evidence of significant safety or community benefit.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. It has considered, decided and refused Mr X’s application in line with its published vehicle cross over application criteria against which all applications are assessed.
11. We are not an appeal body and whilst I acknowledged Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision it is not our role to question the Council’s decisions where, as here, there is no sign of fault in the process by which it was reached.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman