Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his Vehicle Cross Over application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a Vehicle Cross Over (VCO) to the front of his property. Mr X says the Council did not provide the relevant information prior to his application and as a result he lost his application fee.

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 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))
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 and the Council.
6. I considered the information held on the Council’s website page on Vehicle Cross Overs and 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 VCO to the front of his property. The Council refused the application because Mr X already has a VCO to the rear of his property. It referred to its VCO Application Criteria, in reaching its decision. This states at section 5, separate entrance and exit or a second access: ‘In order to maintain as much on-street parking as possible, a second access in urban and suburban areas (this includes access from an adjacent road at the side or back of the property) is highly likely to be refused unless significant safety or community benefit can be identified.’
9. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. The Council considered the information Mr X provided but upheld its decision to refuse the application in line with its published criteria.
10. Mr X says the criteria was not made clear prior to his application and had he known it would be declined due to the existing VCO, even though he does not use it, he would have reconsidered making the application as he has lost the assessment fee.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. I considered the information on the Council’s VCO page on its website. This provides a clear link to the current application criteria with the information the Council applies in assessing applications. I am satisfied the relevant information is available to applicants prior to making an application. There is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s application as it has done so in line with the published criteria. It is a decision the Council was entitled to make.
12. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council has followed to make its decision. If we consider, as here, that it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council has made.

Back to top

Final decision

13. 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