Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an application for a vehicle crossover. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council mishandled his application for a vehicle crossing (dropped kerb). He says the Council relied on incorrect information, improperly deferred to Transport for London (TfL), and failed to consider his child’s special educational needs (SEN) under the Equality Act 2010. He also says the Council did not properly consider moving a nearby bus stop, despite concerns about violence, antisocial behaviour and fly-tipping. Mr X says this caused distress, anxiety and safeguarding concerns for his family. He wants the Council to reassess his application and consider moving the bus stop.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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)
3. 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))
4. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained the Council mishandled his application for a vehicle crossover and failed to consider his child's SEN when deciding whether a nearby bus stop should be moved. The Council explained it consulted TfL, which is responsible for the bus stop. TfL objected to the proposal and said it had already considered relevant factors, including safety, and could not support moving the bus stop. The Council also recognised Mr X's concerns about the environment around the bus stop. It explained moving the bus stop as a reasonable adjustment would have wider implications for highway and public safety. The Council referred Mr X to its Vehicle Crossover Policy and explained his application did not meet the requirements for approval.
8. Mr X also complained the bus stop attracted fly-tipping and antisocial behaviour, including a recent violent incident. The Council said these concerns were relevant to community safety and referred them to its Community Safety Team for consideration. It also confirmed its cleansing teams had attended the location previously. However, it explained these matters are not part of the eligibility criteria for a vehicle crossover and therefore did not affect the outcome of his application.
9. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council's decision-making process. The Council considered Mr X's concerns, including those relating to his child's SEN, consulted TfL about the requested bus stop relocation, and explained the reasons for its decision. While Mr X disagrees with the outcome, where a council has followed the correct process, we cannot question whether its decision was right or wrong. There is not enough evidence the Council failed to follow the relevant procedure or properly consider the matters Mr X raised. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman