Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of a vehicle crossing which Mr X paid for but which he is not satisfied with. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s provision of a vehicle crossing which he paid for. He says that the crossing shares access with his neighbour’s driveway and that this has caused boundary issues. It is also one dropped kerbstone shorter than he was led to believe it would be.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he paid the Council £1,838 for provision of a vehicle crossing at his home. He says the Council dropped the kerb but it was one kerbstone shorter than he was expecting and that this means he is sharing the crossing with his neighbour which causes ownership problems because he is trespassing on his neighbour’s land. He wanted the crossing to be exclusively for his us and further along the footway.
6. The Council says it is satisfied that the crossing meets its requirements for a dropped kerb access. The crossing enables Mr X to access his property and did not require removal of a telegraph pole which would have involved additional cost or rejection. It is not responsible for boundary disputes beyond the highway boundary.
7. The crossing is to enable a householder to legally cross the footway which is part of the adopted highway and where it would normally be illegal to drive on the footway. The land covered by the crossing is not subject to third party rights because it is within the highway boundary so Mr X is not trespassing when he crosses the footway, he is exercising highway rights.
8. The Council is the highway authority and it may approve or refuse applications to cross the footway. In this case the Council was satisfied that the crossing meets its requirements and that Mr X can access his property legally.
9. 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

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of a vehicle crossing which Mr X paid for but which he is not satisfied with. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman