Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr Y’s vehicle crossover application. This is because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s response, and an investigation by the Ombudsman would unlikely achieve anything more for Mr Y.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s handling of his vehicle crossover application.
2. He says delays in the Council’s actions have resulted in him facing additional costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y applied for a vehicle crossover and the Council confirmed that applications usually take four to six weeks to process. The Council took four months to process Mr Y’s application.
7. Mr Y says that during this time, the Council updated its policy requiring applicants to pay consultation fees. He says the delays in processing his application meant he had to pay additional costs.
8. The Council introduced consultation fees in 2022, some years before Mr Y made his application. It had a right to do this.
9. The Council has a right to review and change its policies, including increasing fees for its services. Its recent policy change made it clearer to applicants of the fees involved.
10. The Council accepted there was a significant delay in processing Mr Y’s crossover application. It apologised to Mr Y and agreed to a 50% reduction in the parking consultation fee to reflect this.
11. We publish guidance on remedies, and I am satisfied that the Council has sufficiently remedied the injustice experienced by Mr Y in line with our guidance. I understand Mr Y wants a discount on his vehicle crossover, but the Council has a right to charge for this service.
12. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response, and an investigation would unlikely achieve anything more for Mr Y. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr Y’s vehicle crossover application. This is because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s response, and an investigation by the Ombudsman would unlikely achieve anything more for Mr Y.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman