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 property. He says the Council did not consider his personal circumstances and similar nearby properties have a vehicle crossover.

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. (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 applied for a vehicle crossover. The Council refused his application.
7. The Council’s policy requires a minimum off-street parking depth of 4.8 metres. It refused Mr X’s application because his property did not meet the Council’s minimum size requirement and a vehicle would overhang the footway, creating a safety risk.
8. The Council explained similar nearby properties were allowed a footway crossing under a previous policy.
9. Mr X also says the Council failed to consider his personal circumstances under the Equality Act. The Council considered this but decided it could not make adjustments because of the safety risk to footway users. I have not seen sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation.
10. I have not seen enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify investigating. It applied its policy and considered Mr X’s personal circumstances.
11. 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

12. 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