The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s application for a full-width vehicle crossing. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the |Council’s decision to limit his application for a driveway extension to a further 1.8 meters in addition to the existing 2.4 meters. He says he needs a full width extension with his neighbour’s driveway to prevent his car scraping the kerb and driving on the pavement.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I have considered the Council’s published policy on vehicle crossings.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X applied for an extension to his existing dropped kerb vehicle crossings so that it would extend the full width of his property and meet a neighbour’s crossing. He says there are other examples of this on his street already.
The Council refused his request and only offered limited permission for a further 1.8 metres. It says the maximum permitted width is 4.2 metres and a full width crossing is not permitted under its policy which was introduced in 2019. The properties with wider crossings pre-date this policy and are no longer permitted.
Mr X is dissatisfied with the decision and says that it would encourage him to breach the highway code and highways legislation if he drives over the pavement. Motorists cannot drive over the footway where there is no dropped kerb and are not insured to do so.
When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions. In this case Mr X’s application was properly considered against the policy and permission was approved for an extension within the limits of the policy.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s application for a full-width vehicle crossing. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman