Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a vehicle crossover application because Mr Y has not suffered significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s decisions to refuse his vehicle crossover application. He says it should have completed a site visit, and its decision should not have been solely based on its policy.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available and relevant evidence to decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y applied for a second vehicle crossover at his property, which the Council rejected. He asked it to review this decision through its internal appeal process. The Council did but upheld its position.
7. Mr Y is unhappy that the Council relied solely on its policy, which states applications for a second access are highly unlikely to be approved unless significant safety or community benefit can be identified. Mr Y says his application was based on safety grounds. The Council advised that Mr Y should liaise with his neighbour and request they cut back their hedge to improve his visibility.
8. I cannot criticise the Council for relying on its policies. We expect a Council’s decision reason to be in line with its policies, which is what has happened in this case. I am also satisfied the Council considered why Mr X requested the second vehicle crossover and explained why it did not consider the existing crossover unsafe.
9. Mr Y is unhappy that the Council did not conduct a site visit. The Council’s policy for vehicle crossover applications does suggest a site visit may take place, if an application is deemed to be suitable. The Council has explained why the second vehicle crossover would not be acceptable or suitable at Mr Y’s property. It explained how a crossover would not comply with policy.
10. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in deciding on whether to approve Mr Y’s application. I also consider it is likely, on the balance of probabilities, that the outcome of the application would have been the same even if the Council had conducted a site visit at the address. I do not consider Mr Y having suffered significant personal injustice because of this, and therefore we will not investigate this complaint.
11. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because he has not suffered significant injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman