Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a vehicle crossing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the delay and complexity of the Council’s procedures for approving his application for a vehicle crossing following planning approval in 2023.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X obtained planning approval for a vehicle crossing and parking area in 2023. The approval was subject to the removal of an existing parking bay which was part of parking regulations under a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). The Council told Mr X that he would have to apply for the dropped kerb for the access to the highway authority. He did so and this was refused because the existing parking bay needed to be removed from the TRO first.
6. A TRO is a legal document and can only be changed by a review under the provisions of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales) Regulations 1996. The Council added the bay removal to the next review and told Mr X the dropped kerb would be included. Following his complaint about the length of time taken the Council informed Mr X that it had omitted to include the dropped kerb but this was now rectified. This did not cause any injustice to Mr X because the procedure was still ongoing at the consultation stage.
7. The review is a two-year process and involves a statutory consultation period and an opportunity for the public to submit objections. The review is due to be concluded in spring 2026 and will come into force after that subject to any objections.
8. The procedure in this case involved the planning authority, the highway authority and the Council’s parking enforcement team. While it is understandable that the matter was complex and at times frustrating for Mr X the vehicle crossing involved different legislation relating to separate council services. There is no evidence to suggest that the process would have been any different with any other council because all the statutory requirements must be considered.
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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a vehicle crossing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman