Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council not granting her permission for a new vehicle crossover, proposing an extension of her existing shared crossover, and how it dealt with her appeal. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in the decision-making process to warrant an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

The complaint

1. Miss X lives in a property with a crossover allowing vehicle access from the highway on to her property. There is currently a crossover she shares with the neighbouring property. Miss X applied for a new crossover which would only serve her property. She complains the Council:
1. failed to properly consider her appeal against its decision to refuse her vehicle crossover application;
2. offered permission for an alternative proposal, to extend her side of the current shared crossover, which she considers is not practical.
2. Miss X says the Council’s process has made her anxious as she considers her views have not been heard. Miss X says a neighbour has been granted a dropped kerb with the same circumstances as hers which she considers is unfair. She wants her application considered by a different surveyor as a fresh application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Miss X, the Council’s vehicle crossover policy, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
7. In response to Miss X’s crossover application, the Council visited the site. The officer determined that the location was unsuitable for a new crossover. The Council advised Miss X that the crossover would be in breach of three parts of its policy and issued a refusal letter.
8. Miss X asked the Council how to appeal. Officers then received further documents from Miss X which they reviewed. They altered their initial full refusal to propose an alternative solution of an extension to Miss X’s existing shared crossover. She did not want this outcome so contacted the Council again. The Council accepts it did not answer Miss X’s question on how to appeal before issuing the amended decision. Miss X considers the Council did not take account of her additional information. Officers explained the appeal process is not ‘based on’ new information from the applicant. But the Council had that before it when they reviewed the process its officers had followed, including the application of its policy, and issued the final decision. There is not enough evidence that the Council’s error in its process affected its decision on Miss X’s application warranting an investigation.
9. Officers gathered relevant information about the location by visiting. They then considered the application and information from Miss X against the Council’s policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. We understand Miss X does not consider the Council’s proposal of extending her current shared crossover to be workable. The Council’s role is to assess the viability of a crossover application and its compliance with policy as it relates to the highway land it controls. That assessment does not require officers to take account of whether a scheme is considered viable or acceptable by the crossover applicant for their property. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s offer of an alternative crossover scheme to justify us investigating.
11. We note Miss X says the Council previously granted permission for a crossover to a neighbour with the same property frontage as hers. It is not clear whether that permission was given under a different Council policy. It may be the neighbour received their permission before the Council adopted its latest policy. Officers should apply the current policy when making their decisions. If the neighbour received their permission due to a Council fault, that was their good fortune. But we would not then order a council to repeat a previous fault which goes against their policy, to give someone else another incorrectly permitted crossover.
12. The complaint outcome Miss X wants is for the Council to reconsider her application anew, done by a different officer. It is for the Council to decide which of its officers carries out its functions. We cannot order the Council to reconsider the matter using a different officer. Any officer assigned should in any event be applying the same Council policy. That we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant an investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman