Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Vehicle Cross Over application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council has not properly considered his appeal about an application for a Vehicle Cross Over (VCO) at his home.

• He says it has not used its discretion in considering if the dropped curb is necessary to afford his disabled partner access into their home, including addressing proposed alternative methods he suggested.
• He says the appeal decision does not explain how the Council assessed their circumstances or considered his proposed alternatives.
• He says the Council did not properly follow its own appeal process.

2. Mr X also complains that officers attempted to discourage him from complaining to the Ombudsman.
3. Mr X would like the Council to reconsider his application, properly taking into account his partner’s circumstances, engaging with the alternatives he proposed and clearly explaining the reasoning behind whatever decision it reaches.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. 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

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. Mr X says the Council did not adequately explain why his partner’s circumstances did not change the decision. I consider its explanation is clear.
9. The Council’s response to Mr X’s appeal provides a clear explanation of how the VCO would not meet one of the safety requirements in its application criteria.
10. It also explains how the VCO does not comply with two other parts of its policy.
11. The appeal response states, while the Council can apply some level of discretion, it could not approve an application that fell so far below several key criteria.
12. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the application should be refused.
13. Mr X says the Council did not properly consider his appeal because the officer deciding it was involved in the original decision. I do not consider this caused significant injustice because the substantive matters were still properly considered and the Council’s decision was in line with its policy.
14. Mr X says the Council has not conducted an Equality Impact Assessment of how VCO applications interact with disability and did not have due regard for its duties under the Equality Act and Public Sector Equality Duty.
15. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected.
16. In this case, the Council did consider his circumstances and suggested some alternative solutions, in recognition of Mr X and his partner’s particular needs.
17. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his complaint and says he was discouraged from coming to the Ombudsman. If Council officers attempted to discourage Mr X from complaining to the Ombudsman, it has not prevented him from doing so. Therefore, it has not caused him significant injustice. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide the impact of the fault a person complains about is not so significant that we should investigate. It is also not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman