Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a vehicle crossover application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused his vehicle crossover application. He says the Council incorrectly claimed there was a designated parking bay on the road outside his property. He says the Council failed to consider the evidence provided.
2. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his application and related complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. We will not normally investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), or section 34B(8)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including information available online on the Council’s website.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In April 2026, the Council told Mr X it had refused his vehicle crossover application. It said this was because there was designated on-street parking in the vicinity of Mr X’s proposed vehicle crossover.
8. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision.
9. The Council upheld its original decision on review and following Mr X’s complaint about the matter.
10. The Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s application. Our role is to review the process by which the Council reached its decision.
11. Based on the evidence I have seen, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify investigating. The Council reviewed the information Mr X sent alongside its own policies and records regarding the designated parking bays. It correctly explained council officers should apply the current policy when making their decisions. So, a neighbouring property’s vehicle crossover that was built several years ago could not affect its decision. Its decision to refuse the application is in line with its eligibility criteria published on the Council’s website. This guidance states clearly the Council will refuse an application where the proposed vehicle crossover is in the vicinity of designated on-street parking space.
12. The Council responded to Mr X’s evidence of a yellow line present in front of his property, as well as his points around the faintness of the parking bay markings outside his property. After considering the evidence, it explained the parking bay markings had faded with time. And, the yellow line was a historic marking that was no longer in force. This meant it did not affect the validity of the parking bays. It explained clearly the next steps it would take to refresh the parking bay’s paintwork and blackout any of the old yellow line. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.
13. We will not investigate the way the Council handled the complaint and correspondence as a standalone issue when we are not investigating the substantive issues. This is because any separable injustice to Mr X is not significant enough to justify investigating.
14. Further, Mr X complains the Council failed to provide information he asked for. He has recently requested this information from the Council under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the Regulations”). We consider it reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if he remains unhappy with the Council’s response to his request. The ICO is the body with specific powers and expertise to look into environmental information issues. The ICO has powers which the Ombudsman does not have to require compliance with the Regulations. So, we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman