Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a footway crossing. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a footway crossing to the front of her property.

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 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. This included the Council’s current Policy for Footway Crossings.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X applied to the Council for a footway crossing. The Council refused her application because her property frontage does not meet the minimum size criteria set out in its current policy for granting of a footway crossing.
8. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision and provided additional information about her reasons for applying for a footway crossing. This included explaining her parking difficulties and wish to purchase an electric car. Mrs X also highlighted that two nearby properties have been granted vehicle crossings.
9. The Council considered and responded to the information Mrs X provided but upheld its decision to refuse her application in line with its policy. It explained that previous applications will have been assessed and decided on a case by case basis in line with the policy in place at the time and that local existing footway crossings do not necessarily mean that a new application will be approved.
10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because, whilst I acknowledge Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s decision, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. This is because it has considered, decided and refused Mrs X’s application in line with the current published criteria which applies to all applicants. The policy states that applications which do not meet the minimum standards will be refused. It considered the additional information Mrs X provided in support of her appeal but did not allow it outside of its policy. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
11. 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 it followed to make its decision. In making its decision, the Council took account of its own policy, and the information Mrs X provided and followed the appropriate procedure when making its decision. As there is no sign of fault in how the Council made its decision I cannot question whether that decision is right or wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman