Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s rejection of a highway vehicle crossing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s refusal of their application for a second vehicle crossing at their home. They say that they need additional access because they have difficulties accessing their garage with a single access drive only.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response. I have also considered the Council’s policy on vehicle crossing applications.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr and Mrs X asked the Council for permission to construct a second vehicle access to their property because they say their current one isn’t enough to allow access to their garage for parked vehicles and a boat. The Council rejected their application because it says it does not meet the requirements of its vehicle crossing policy.
6. The Council’s policy says that second access applications will not be approved unless there are significant community benefit or safety reasons. The Council inspected the site but concluded that Mr and Mrs X’s reasons were not sufficient to justify further loss of on-street parking for the community. The Council indicated that it would consider an application to enlarge the existing access but not for a separate one.
7. 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

8. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s rejection of a highway vehicle crossing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman