Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dropped kerb application because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has applied its vehicle crossover policy too rigidly, measuring the distance of his driveway from the first point of his property rather than the main building line, despite Mr Y having altered his porch to allow for more space. He is also unhappy with how his complaint has been responded to.
2. Mr Y says he has been unable to create off road parking at his property and cannot switch to an electric vehicle due to the issue.

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 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))
5. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. 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.
8. While previous policies may have allowed other driveways to have a vehicle crossover, the Council’s current policy only allows a vehicle crossover where there is a minimum of 5.5 metres between the back of the footway and the nearest point on the property. The Council must therefore consider the application based on this policy and not a precedent, which has not been set by any previous policy.
9. The Council’s complaint response explains the Council has considered the nearest point on Mr Y’s property to be the wall of the bay window on the property. While Mr Y says he would not park his vehicle against this wall and has even removed the porch outside his property to allow more room for a vehicle to park, the Council has considered the application in accordance with its policy and has rejected the application. As the Council has been able to explain its rationale and how it has considered the application in line with its policy, there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify investigation. We will not investigate.
10. As we are not considering the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public resources to consider how the Council responded to Mr Y’s complaint. We will not investigate this.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman