The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council preventing use of an unauthorised vehicle crossing. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Miss X complained about the Council installing bollards on the footway to prevent her crossing to her home using an unauthorised vehicle crossing. She says she has used it for 10 years and that the Council is acting unreasonably by denting her access which has been established over time.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X says she has been using a crossing to access her property for 10 years. In 2020 the Council wrote to her and advised her to stop driving over the footway because she had no authorised vehicle crossing and dropped kerb. It advised that it would install bollards to prevent this if she continued because it is a highway offence. Miss X says she believes she has established a right to cross the footway over time and that the Council were acting in a heavy-handed manner.
The Council subsequently installed bollards and Miss X made a formal complaint. The Council told her it is an offence under the Highways Act 1980 to drive over the footway without an authorised vehicle crossing. She was advised she could submit an application for a crossing but that this was unlikely to be successful because she has insufficient space in front of her property to meet the requirements. There is a non-refundable charge for highway crossing applications.
The Council is the highway authority and it has powers to prevent the unauthorised crossing of the highway which is an offence. The courts have established that it is not possible to claim title by adverse possession to land that forms part of the public highway. In this case the Council has advised Miss X what she must do to prevent causing a highway offence and the placing f bollards in the footway for highway safety reasons was not fault.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council preventing use of an unauthorised vehicle crossing. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman