Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions to refuse Miss Y’s vehicle crossover application and to reinstate the area to its original state. This is because part of the complaint is late, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the Council’s decisions to refuse her vehicle crossover application and to reinstate the area to its original state.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council rejected Miss Y’s vehicle crossover application in September 2024. She asked the Council to review its decision through its internal appeal process. The Council reviewed this in October 2024 and upheld its position. This part of the complaint is late. We expect a person to complain to us within 12 months of being aware of a matter and Miss Y did not complain to us until January 2026. Even if this part of the complaint was not late, we would not investigate because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. The Council considered Miss Y's application and rejected this because the proposed driveway does not meet the minimum space criteria as outlined in its policy.
7. Miss Y is unhappy that different counties have different measurement criteria and says this is discriminatory. Each Council has a right to have its own individual policy and criteria for deciding vehicle crossover applications.
8. The Council says after her application was refused, Miss Y proceeded to install a vehicle crossover illegally. The Council has reinstated this area to its original state. The Council had a right to do this in line with its duty under the Highways Act 1980. It also has a right to charge individuals for reinstatement costs, where a person has illegally installed a vehicle crossover. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.
9. 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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because part of the complaint is late, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman