Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Mr X’s vehicle crossing application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X applied for a vehicle crossover (VCO). The Council accepted the application but proposed an alternative location for the crossover. Mr X appealed this decision, but the Council maintained its refusal. Mr X states he was treated unfairly.

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X states the Council refused his VCO application, as well as his appeal, based on the design he proposed. He also complains about the Council’s complaint handling, saying he was not assigned an independent Stage Two investigator
7. The Council has a statutory duty to manage the highway safely and fairly and has published guidance on the criteria for approving VCOs. It refused Mr X’s application because the proposed crossover would total 12 metres, exceeding the maximum permitted 8.5‑metre length; the tree officer advised that a more centralised access would harm the established tree outside Mr X’s property; and the location is prone to flooding, which the works could worsen. The Council explained these reasons in writing, with reference to its guidance, and considered his appeal.
8. The Ombudsman is 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 an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider 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 made.
9. In this case, the evidence shows the Council considered Mr X’s application in line with its published policy and explained its decision. I have not seen the evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision therefore will not be investigating.
10. Nor will I investigate the Council’s complaint handling. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to investigate the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman