Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a vehicle crossover application. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to pursue the matter in court. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice in relation to his complaint about who installed the dropped kerb.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council approved his application for a vehicle crossover (dropped kerb). Mr X then completed work to his property believing he was allowed to do so. Mr X says the Council then refused the application and told him the crossover was unlawful. Mr X says the Council did not follow the proper process and did not formally notify him of the refusal. Mr X further complains about a Council Officer’s conduct.
2. Mr X says the Council’s actions have caused him significant financial loss and distress. Mr X wants the Council to grant permission for the dropped kerb, pay him compensation and to apologise for its conduct.

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:

• 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))

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. In September 2021 Mr X asked the Council for permission to create a vehicle crossover at his property. Mr X paid the application fee for a vehicle crossover.
9. In November 2021 the Council told Mr X it had received his payment and would contact him two days before it started the work.
10. Later that month, a Contract Monitoring Officer noticed Mr X had not met the conditions of the dropped kerb application. The Council accepted fault in that it had given an estimate of cost for the work before the conditions had been met.
11. The Council contacted Mr X and told him there had been a mistake and the dropped kerb had not been approved. The Council told Mr X it could refund the application fee or he could apply for planning permission.
12. Mr X said he relied on the information from the Council and carried out work to his property on the basis his dropped kerb application had been approved. However, the Council did notice its mistake shortly after Mr X was incorrectly asked to make a payment for the vehicle crossover. I understand Mr X said he was not told about the Council’s error and was not aware the crossover had not been approved until recently. But the Council’s website explains applicants would receive a letter confirming the application has been approved. It says applicants should not start work until they receive that letter.
13. Mr X could have referred to the guidance on the Council’s website. Although I understand Mr X received an invoice for the vehicle crossover, there is no evidence to show he received an approval letter.
14. Mr X can also pursue the matter in court if he believes the Council is liable for the costs he has incurred developing his property. I consider it would be reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court as the courts can determine liability.
15. Mr X said he did not arrange for the crossover to be installed and believed the Council completed the work. The Council investigated and told Mr X it did not install the vehicle crossover. It told him it would remove the illegal crossover. Even though there is a dispute about who carried out the work, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice in this regard. Even if the Council did install the dropped kerb, it has offered to refund the fee Mr X paid so he has not incurred any costs for the installation, and the Council has explained why the crossover is being removed.
16. Mr X complained about the conduct of a Council Officer. I have seen evidence the Officer informed residents the crossover would be removed. The Council is entitled to do this. I have seen no evidence of the Officer making insulting comments about Mr X.
17. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman