Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to grant permission for a vehicle crossover. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council did not properly consider her exceptional circumstances before refusing her application for a vehicle crossover. She says the decision is unreasonable and causing her inconvenience and financial loss. She wants the Council to reconsider her application and take the necessary steps to approve the application and allow her to use her driveway.

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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In its complaint response, the Council set out how it had reached its decision to refuse her vehicle crossover application. It said its policy states a proposed vehicle crossover must not usually result in the need to amend an existing Traffic Management Order (TMO). However, it would consider each application on its own merits.
7. It said its officer had visited the site to review her application but noted there was a parking bay outside her property. To remove the parking bay, this would require amending the TMO that provided the legal framework for the parking bay. It said it had considered her case but did not consider there were exceptional circumstances that would merit this. It upheld its decision to refuse the application.
8. The response also explained how it had considered her points regarding the Council’s parking strategy, the use of electric vehicles and her personal circumstances.
9. 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 a person disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. Although I accept Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision, the decision appears in line with its policy. The Council response sets out how it has considered Ms X’s circumstances and the points she raised in support of her application, but that it has decided these do not constitute exceptional circumstances to warrant a departure from its policy. I am satisfied the Council has appropriately considered the matter before reaching its decision, so we cannot question the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman