Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council requiring an applicant for a vehicle crossing to pay for the re-siting of a lighting column to carry out the works. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council refusing to pay for the re-siting of a lighting column which is obstructing the access for his proposed the vehicle crossing. He believes the Council should move the post at public expense.

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 responses. I have also considered the Council’s policy on vehicle crossings and hardstandings.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied to the Council for a vehicle crossing at his home. The Council told him that there is a pre-existing lighting column in the highway edge which he would have to pay to have re-located. Mr X says the Council should pay for this because the column is not sited symmetrically with other columns in the street scene.
6. The Council is the highway authority and it has powers under the Highways Act 1980 to decide what infrastructure may be created within the highway, this includes the footway and grass verges. Mr X applied for a vehicle crossing and the Council may approve or refuse it according to the site location and its policy on crossings. The lighting columns were chosen for their present siting by the Council and it decides where they should be located.
7. Many councils will simply reject an application where there is infrastructure on the proposed site, this includes trees, telephone poles or lighting columns. There is no right to have a vehicle crossing, this is at the discretion of the highway authority. The Council has a published policy on vehicle crossing applications and it makes it clear that where infrastructure is allowed to be relocated the applicant would pay the fee.
8. Mr X is the applicant and he is creating a private entry into the public highway so it is reasonable that she should bear the costs of creating the access. This is the same procedure operated by other councils although there is discretion as to how much the crossing may cost and this varies between councils.
9. There is no fault in the Council advising Mr X what he would need to pay to have his crossing completed. There was no duty for it to approve his application and it could have refused if it decided the siting was unsuitable.
10. 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

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council requiring an applicant for a vehicle crossing to pay for the re-siting of a lighting column to carry out the works. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman