Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a vehicle crossing. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council's decision to refuse her application for a vehicle crossing to the front of her home to improve her vehicle access due to her health conditions. Ms X says her neighbours have vehicle crossings in identical circumstances.

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, 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))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a vehicle crossing. Ms X’s occupational therapist recommended she apply for a crossing to improve her vehicle access due to her health conditions.
7. The Council refused Ms X’s application because the gradient to the front of her property is too high for a vehicle crossing to be installed. A senior engineer attended the property on two occasions in its assessment of her application and found the gradient was too steep for the installation of a vehicle crossing as it is in excess of 1 in 12.
8. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision. She noted her neighbours have vehicle crossings installed in identical circumstances and questioned why hers was refused.
9. The Council said it assesses each application on its merits. It explained Ms X’s application was not the same as her neighbours as their property frontages are not as steep as hers. There is a steeper drop at Ms X’s property which makes a larger level difference and, as a result, a crossing cannot be installed. It explained the neighbours’ applications would not necessarily be approved if they were made now as they may not meet the current eligibility criteria.
10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. We are 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 it 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 Ms X disagrees with it.
11. In deciding Ms X’s application it took account of its guidance, attended and assessed the site and clearly explained the reason for its decision. There is no sign of fault in the process by which it made its decision and I cannot therefore question it.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman