Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing the complainant’s application for a vehicle crossover. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council refusing his application for a vehicle crossover on the grounds that it would impact a grassed amenity area between the kerb and his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. We can 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 Mr X and the Council, which included the Council’s original decision and appeal decision on the application.
• the Council’s ‘Vehicle Cross Over – Application Criteria’ guidance.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy the Council refused his application for a vehicle crossover, and thinks it could have agreed to the alternative solution he proposed (for protective grass re-enforcement grids to be used instead).
6. But 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 the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
7. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault, in the way the Council reached its decision on Mr X’s application, to justify starting an investigation. This is because the decision was made in accordance with the criteria detailed in the Council’s vehicle cross over application guidance.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on his application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman