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

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council approving a dropped kerb for his vehicle crossing which he says is unsuitable for his needs and the safety conditions of the road where he lives. He says other crossings in his neighbourhood have been allowed to have wider crossings for easier access and the Council’s approval is inconsistent. He wants the Council to approve a wider dropped kerb access.

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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he was given approval for a new dropped kerb vehicle crossing following his construction of a new dwelling. He says the standard access approved consists of four flat kerbs and two ramped ones but this is insufficient due to the presence of parked vehicles opposite his home which reduces the width and the space he has to manoeuvre.
6. He complained about the decision and gave an example of another site nearly one mile away where he says the road is equally narrow but new-build properties were allowed a six-kerb flat access. He believes the Council has acted inconsistently and that it should make an exception to its policy for his application as it has with others.
7. The Council is the highway authority and the provision of dropped kerb vehicle accesses is a discretionary power. There is no specific guidance on these features in the legislation which is the Highways Act 1980. The Council has a policy which sets out the requirements and the standards it requires.
8. The site Mr X referred to is a new-build development where the joint access was approved as part of a planning application rather than a separate application to the highway authority. Mr X compared the width of the road on the other site with the space he has available on his road when there are cars parked opposite. This is not a valid comparison. The road width is from one edge of the highway to the other. If there are no parking restrictions it may be common for vehicles to be parked there but they are not fixtures and the road width remains that set out in plans and the list of streets. The other site has a narrower road then Mr X’s road.
9. There are often individual crossings where they do not meet a council’s policy because they pre-date the current version or because they have been built without approval or approved under planning legislation by the local planning authority.
10. Mr X’s crossing was approved when he built a new dwelling and aquired highway land to do so. The approval was for a standard crossing and it was suitable for the width of the road otherwise it would not have been approved. If Mr X is facing difficult of access from parked vehicles he could ask the Council to consider introducing parking restrictions which would require a traffic order and public consultation.
11. 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

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s specifications for approval of a vehicle crossing. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman