Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, made on behalf of his mother Mrs Y, about the Council’s decision to refuse permission for a wider vehicle crossover, and about the Council’s crossover policy. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X and Mrs Y from the matters complained of to warrant investigating. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s adoption of its crossover policies to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X is Mrs Y’s son. Mrs Y has dementia and is disabled and lives in a property with a grass verge between her boundary and the highway. Mr X applied for an increase in the width of the existing vehicle crossover and dropped kerb at the property in 2023. Mr X complains the Council has:
1. made an incorrect decision to refuse the dropped kerb application;
2. not got a policy which reflects the changing needs of an ageing population.
2. Mr X says Mrs Y’s carers and medical visitors cannot get parked so are often late providing her care. He says the Council’s decision has also caused him extreme upset and depressed him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• 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

4. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council refused the request to increase the dropped kerb width under its policy because the grass verge between the property boundary and the roadway is over two metres deep. Its policy does not allow installations of crossovers where such a deep grass verge would be removed. We note the property’s hardstanding has recently been increased and a wall removed. But the Council confirmed the alterations to the property had no bearing on their decision, because their grass verge’s depth would remain unchanged.
6. Even if there has been fault in the Council’s decision regarding the crossover request we will not investigate. The property where Mrs Y lives has an existing dropped kerb with some off-street parking, permitted under a previous crossover policy. The road on which the property is located has mostly single yellows away from the junctions. There is alternate-side parking in place, with one side allowing parking on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and the other side allowing it on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and no weekend restrictions. There would be on-street parking near the property for visitors to use, or the property’s residents may choose to free up part of their existing off-street parking space for their use.
7. Even if I am wrong and there is no usable parking nearby, the parking situation for carers and other visitors results in insufficient significant injustice to Mrs Y to warrant investigation. We cannot say the lateness of some carers or medical staff for appointments with Mrs Y is either completely or mostly due to the parking situation around the property. There are many other factors which can cause visitors to be late, such as traffic and their previous appointments overrunning. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mrs Y stemming from the Council’s crossover decision to justify us investigating. We recognise Mr X has been upset by the Council’s decision. Any decision which does not give someone the outcome they sought will cause some distress. But the upset and disappointment caused to him here is an insufficiently significant injustice to warrant us investigating.
8. Mr X considers the Council’s policy on vehicle crossovers does not consider the changing needs of the population. Councils are entitled to create and adopt their policies. We may only criticise a council’s policy if it has not followed the proper process when being adopted. There is insufficient evidence of such fault by the Council when it put its vehicle crossover policies in place to warrant us investigating, so we will not do so.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough significant personal injustice to Mr X and Mrs Y to warrant us investigating; and
• there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s adoption of its policies to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman