Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not allowing him to have a vehicle crossover at his property and it not dealing with parked vehicles in his road overhanging the pavement. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its crossover decision nor its response to the parking issue to warrant us investigating. There is insufficient injustice to Mr X caused by the parking matter to justify an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in street with some houses with off-street parking. He wants a vehicle crossover, allowing him to park and charge an electric vehicle on his property. Mr X complains the Council:
1. will not allow him to have a vehicle crossover at his property because the space does not comply with its policy;
2. has failed to deal with other cars parked on the highway which overhang the pavement.
2. Mr X says the Council’s refusal to agree his crossover, applying a special condition to restrict the size of the vehicle, shows a lack of responsiveness to site‑specific needs and undermines his and the public’s confidence in the fairness of the process. He says many cars park on the highway in a chaotic manner, often leading to many cars overhanging the pavement
3. Mr X wants the Council to apply a special concession to its crossover policy, to allow him to have a dropped kerb and to have a smaller car which fits on his property without encroaching on the pavement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; 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

6. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. 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.
8. When considering Mr X’s crossover request, the Council’s Officers visited and noted the depth of the space between his house’s front wall and the edge of the footway. The measurement fell short of the depth required in its policy on dropped kerbs, so officers refused the application.
9. Mr X appealed against the Council’s decision. He considers the Council should have used discretion to disapply its policy for his application because of mitigating factors. Mr X says he would not park a car on his property which would not fit in the available space and overhang the footway. He said he would accept restrictions applied by the Council on the size of vehicle he could have. Mr X also asked the Council to take into account the parking situation on his road, where other vehicles overhang footways when parked on the highway. He said allowing his crossover would ease this issue, as well as supporting wider environmental aims and community wellbeing.
10. Officers decided the reasons Mr X gave did not provide grounds for them to step outside their usual policy. They explained the Council had to be consistent in the application of policy, otherwise it would set a precedent others may seek to use and expose the Council to legal challenge. Officers also explained they could not grant a dropped kerb permission based on the vehicle an applicant intended to keep at their property. Once a crossover is in place, the Council would have no control over the size of vehicle the resident could have. So while they recognised it was Mr X’s intention to own a small car which would fit in the available space, officers could not use that intention as a basis to grant the crossover.
11. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in its decision on the application to warrant us investigating. The Council considered the evidence and comments Mr X made at each stage of his application and appeal and took account of their policy. Officers decided Mr X’s appeal and comments did not give them grounds to exercise discretion to allow his application. That was a decision they were entitled to take. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
12. In response to Mr X’s complaint about parking in his road, the Council explained there were no formalised restrictions in place. Officers advised Mr X to report any specific issues to them and that enforcement of vehicles overhanging the footway may also be a matter for the police. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council on this issue to justify an investigation.
13. Even if there was fault by the Council in its response to the wider parking situation in Mr X’s street, we will not investigate. Mr X and his family can use the footway and highway to access their property. We recognise obstruction of the footway may cause annoyance and frustration to Mr X and his household. But these are not sufficiently significant injustices to warrant us investigating. We understand Mr X is concerned the parking situation may lead to tension in the neighbourhood. But Mr X does not report on any such tension arising. We cannot consider as an injustice concerns about what might happen in the future.
14. Mr X wants the Council to change its decision and grant his dropped kerb permission so he can use it to park a smaller car which fits on his property. We cannot order councils to grant a permission. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating; and
• there is not enough significant personal injustice caused to him from the wider parking issue to justify an investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome he wants from his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman