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

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s rejection of his application for a second vehicle crossover at his property. He says the increased traffic in the area has made it more difficult to reverse from his existing crossover and he wanted a second to be able to drive out forwards without manoeuvring. He says the claimed loss of on-street parking is not relevant as there is sufficient parking in his area.

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 vehicle crossing policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says his application for a second vehicle crossing has been rejected by the Council. He appealed against the decision but the appeal was unsuccessful as there were no mitigating circumstances or any safety or community benefit reasons for deviation from the policy.
6. The Council says that it will not normally approve applications for second crossings because they reduce the amount of on-street parking available in an area and more crossings involves more safety risks from existing vehicles.
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 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