Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to reject his vehicle crossover (dropped kerb) application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision making to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not consider key factors regarding his vehicle crossover (dropped kerb) application. Mr X says the Council’s decision to refuse his application was disproportionate, severe and goes far beyond normal inconvenience.

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. We refer to this as ‘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 or injustice to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) as amended, section 34(B)).
3. We consider whether there was a 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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied for a vehicle crossover (dropped kerb) and the Council refused his application. Mr X appealed against the Council’s decision.
7. The Council explained that it refused Mr X’s application because the depth between his property and the public footway does not meet the minimum requirements in its vehicle crossover application criteria.
8. Mr X has expressed frustration that his neighbour was granted permission for a vehicle crossover. The Council has acknowledged this and said crossovers have been allowed in the past which do not meet its current criteria. But the application criteria has changed and to avoid potential safety issues it no longer allows crossovers where there is less than 4.8m hardstanding depth.
9. , Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a vehicle crossover. But we cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
10. The Council reached its decision with reference to the relevant policy, considering all information provided at the time of Mr X’s application.
11. As the decision making process has been completed properly, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to reject the application to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.
12. I acknowledge that Mr X has since provided additional information which may support a further application to the Council and may result in the Council reconsidering its original decision. However, this information was not provided to the Council originally.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman