Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal of his vehicle crossover application. We found fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s application. This fault caused him injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and respond to Mr X’s appeal.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council failed in the way it refused his application for a vehicle crossover. Mr X says the reasons for the Council’s decision were not included in the vehicle crossover application criteria and the Council did not give him an opportunity to appeal its decision.
2. Mr X says the Council’s failing reduced the value of his property as he and his wife (Mrs X) cannot add a drive or a charging point for electric vehicles.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the organisation 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

Legal and administrative framework

Vehicle crossovers

8. Dropped kerbs, also known as vehicle crossovers, provide a means of access to a private driveway from the public highway. 
9. Applications for dropped kerbs are made under Section 184(11) of the Highways Act 1980 which gives councils a wide discretion to decide whether to approve them. Councils should have their own policies and criteria for deciding applications for dropped kerbs.

The Council’s Vehicle crossover guidance

10. The Council’s guidance sets out the criteria it will use to assess applications. The Council may also consider other factors such as the road aesthetics, local amenity, parking and the intended purpose of the requested location.
11. The Council may consider any grassed area an amenity area, however it is more likely to consider it as such if the length of verge/grass from the kerb to the private residence is three meters. Requests to cross large expanses of grass amenity areas will most likely be refused.
12. The Council is likely to refuse applications requiring the removal of a healthy, well established highway tree. To avoid damage to the tree roots, a minimum Root Protection Area needs to be left undisturbed around each tree.
13. When refusing vehicle crossover application the Council will provide reasons for its decision in writing. The Council’s decision can be appealed. There are two stages to the Council’s appeal procedure:
• at stage one an appropriate officer will look at the decision and whether it is in line with the Council’s procedure;
• if the original decision was in line with the Council’s procedure it will automatically move to stage two. A more senior manager will look at the decision and consider whether there is any reason why the council should change the decision even though it is correct according to the procedure. If there are no reasons to change the decision the applicant will be notified accordingly.

What happened

14. Mr X applied for a vehicle crossover to the Council at the beginning of October 2024.
15. A few days before this application strong winds caused damage to a tree growing on Mr X’s neighbours grass verge. Mr X said his neighbours had reported this to the Council. In the first days of October tree surgeons cut the tree.
16. The Council refused Mr X’s crossover application, as the grass verge before Mr X’s property was three meters or wider.
17. On the same day Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. He said the Council’s measurements were wrong and the grass verge was less than three meters. Besides the Council had recently approved a similar crossover application from his neighbour.
18. At the beginning of November the Council sent its response to Mr X’s appeal. Although it accepted its measurements were wrong and the verge was less than three meters wide, the Council still kept its position refusing Mr X’s crossover application. This was because the Council had become aware that a healthy council-owned tree close to the proposed vehicle crossover had been cut by a third party. The Council did not want to set a precedent by accepting such an activity and suggested a possibility of replanting a tree in this area. The Council said this correspondence ended Mr X’s appeal and referred him to the Ombudsman if Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response.
19. Mr X claimed the reasons provided in the Council’s response to his appeal were not in line with the Council’s policy. The application criteria in the policy mentions removal of a healthy, well-established highway tree. In Mr X’s view this was not applicable to the removed tree as the tree was owned by his neighbours and was not healthy. Mr X said he had not been involved in the removal of the tree.
20. After another email from Mr X the Council told him he could challenge the Council’s position only by raising the matter with the Ombudsman.

Analysis

21. Councils have wide discretion when deciding on applications about vehicle crossovers. They should apply application criteria and the procedure introduced by their policies. As explained in paragraph four of this decision we would not criticise a council’s decision if this decision has been made following the right process.
22. When responding to Mr X’s appeal the Council accepted it was wrong on the width of the grass verge where the vehicle crossover would be located. The Council found, however, another reason why Mr X’s application could not have succeeded but failed to allow him to appeal.
23. The way the Council proceeded with Mr X’s vehicle crossover application was wrong. The Council’s policy clearly allows residents to challenge the Council’s position through appeals. In this case, although the Council’s position remained the same, the reason for the Council’s decision changed. Mr X’s concerns about the amended reasons should have been addressed by the Council’s internal appeal process.
24. The Council’s failure to address Mr X’s concerns through appeal is fault. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Mr X as he was left frustrated and uncertain whether proper handling of his case would have affected the outcome of his application.

Back to top

Action

25. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, we recommend the Council complete within four weeks of the final decision the following:
• apologise to Ms X for the injustice caused to him by the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended;
• consider Mr X’s correspondence of 5 November 2024 as an appeal from the Council’s decision of 5 November 2024 and respond to it accordingly.

The Council will provide the evidence that this has happened.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has accepted my recommendations, so this investigation is at an end.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman