Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his vehicle crossover application. This is because the information does not indicate the Council’s decision was affected by fault.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council wrongly refused his application for a vehicle crossover. Mr B says he had obtained a planning Certificate of Lawful Use which allows him to use the front of his property for off-street parking. Mr B also says the Council has not provided any practical alternative for off-street parking.

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 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr B and have viewed Mr B’s property on Google Streetview. I have also considered the Council’s Vehicle Crossover Policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I have not seen any information to indicate the Council’s decision to refuse Mr B’s vehicle crossover application was affected by fault.
6. The Council’s decision was in line with the Council’s Vehicle Crossover Policy which sets out the Council’s position on proposed crossovers next to traffic calming measures.
7. Planning permission is entirely separate from permission from the local highways authority for a vehicle crossover.
8. So, the planning Certificate of Lawful Use was not a relevant factor for the Council to consider when deciding Mr B’s application for a vehicle crossover.
9. The Council was required to consider Mr B’s application in line with its policy. The Council was not required to provide Mr B with a solution to the lack of off-street parking at his property.
10. So, an investigation is not justified.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman