Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s application for a vehicle crossover. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a vehicle crossover at his home. He says the Council has not properly considered his personal 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. We can 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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complains the Council relied on its minimum depth requirement for off-street parking to refuse his application without properly considering whether the site was otherwise suitable for a vehicle crossover.
7. The Council refused Mr X’s application because his property’s off-street parking area does not meet the Council’s minimum size requirements for off-street parking. The Council measured the available parking area and said it did not meet the minimum size requirements.
8. I have not seen evidence to suggest Mr X’s property meets the Council’s minimum size requirements. So, the Council’s decision was in line with its policy.
9. The Council is not at fault for applying its current policy requirements to Mr X’s application. And it is not our role to tell the Council to change its policy. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.
10. Mr X also says the Council did not properly consider his disability. The Council explained it assesses site conditions rather than personal circumstances. It suggested Mr X could apply for a disabled bay if he was eligible.
11. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act, this can only be done by the courts. If Mr X considers the Council has breached the Equality Act, it is open to him to seek legal advice and take the matter to court.
12. 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 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.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman