The complaint
Mrs B and Mrs C say, as the tenant and landlord respectively, the Council has failed to consider the relevant circumstances when deciding to refuse Mrs C’s application for a vehicle crossover and dropped kerb at Mrs B’s address. Mrs B says this has caused her significant distress as she needs to park at her home because of her disabilities, and she would like the Council to consider the matter again or discuss possible solutions with her.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs B, including the Council’s response to her complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs B moved into the property in 2015; her partner had lived their since 2010. It would appear more recently the Council raised the lack of consent for a vehicle crossover, which means Mrs B and her partner had no legal authority to drive over the footway to park on the property’s frontage. Mrs C, as the owner, applied for consent, but the Council refused it, for reasons it set out clearly in its response to Mrs B’s complaint.
Mrs B says “I need to park outside of our home and I have a right to do so”. That is not, however, correct. While she may have a need, she does not have a right because that could only exist with explicit consent for a vehicle crossover. Whatever Mrs B’s partner understood about his right to drive over the footway when he moved into the property, it was Mrs B’s responsibility as a driver to satisfy herself about whether she could do so when she moved in. She may have relied on information from her partner and the landlord, Mrs C, about that, but the Council is not responsible for the circumstances which created the need to resolve the matter of them driving over the footway without lawful authority.
Mrs B says the Council’s decision to refuse consent amounts to indirect discrimination on the grounds of her disability. The Council is not, however, required to decide in her favour because she has a disability. The Council must consider the conditions of the location, government guidance on the safety and risk of vehicle crossovers, and its resulting policy on the matter. It has done so and has reached a reasoned and detailed conclusion.
In short, the Council says the likely risk to road users of having a crossover in that place is too high to justify it approving Mrs C’s application. That risk would be the same regardless of Mrs B’s disability, so the Council does not appear to be at fault for not referring explicitly to Mrs B’s circumstances because they could not lead it to approve something potentially dangerous, both to her and to others.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs B and Mrs C’s complaint because it does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant us investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman