The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s policy on vehicle crossover applications, its use of the policy on her application, or its adoption of that policy. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s processes to justify us investigating. The Council is due to review its policy in 2023, which is the result Miss X wants, so investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
Miss X bought her house in 2022 and sought permission for a dropped kerb. The Council refused the application because the distance from the front of Miss X’s house to the edge of her property is 0.5m too short. She complains the Council: has unfair policy requirements when granting permissions for dropped kerbs; adopted a policy which is different from those of other authorities.
Miss X says the matter has caused her stress and worry, causing high blood pressure. She is concerned about what she will do if she cannot park near her property once her baby is born. She says the situation has resulted in increased insurance premiums and risk to her car because she cannot park near her house.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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 from Miss X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
When Miss X applied for the dropped kerb, the first page of the application required her to agree to the Council’s terms and conditions. The first paragraph deals with the space required on an applicant’s property and says: ‘If the forecourt of your property does not have a minimum depth of 4.8 metres and a minimum width of 2.4 metres within the frontage of a residential property to accommodate a vehicle parking with either its front or back (not side on) to the carriageway, then the application will be refused.’
The application form meant Miss X would have been aware of the Council’s policy on the space for parking she needed when making her application. In assessing Miss X’s application, the Council confirmed the length of Miss X’s available parking space does not fit the policy criteria, which is there for health and safety reasons. Officers gathered the appropriate information and applied its policy here. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed and decided Miss X’s application here to warrant us investigating.
We can only go behind a council’s decision if there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process officers which, but for that fault, would have resulted in a different decision. I realise she may disagree with the decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
I recognise Miss X says she has a car which would not overhang the pavement because it would fit the available space. But as soon as the Council gives the permission, it would have no control over the use of the space by Miss X or any future user of the crossover who has a bigger vehicle which would not fit the space. The Council considers the size of Miss X’s current car is not a valid ground for officers to give the permission, as it would then be unable to prevent overhanging vehicles using the crossover, which would go against the health and safety aims of its current policy. That is a decision in line with the current policy which officers were entitled to take.
Miss X says other councils have different policies which, for example, allow diagonal parking on the property. It is not fault for councils to adopt and apply different policies. We cannot say this Council is at fault for not applying a policy adopted by a different authority. The Council adopted its latest policy in 2018 and there is insufficient evidence here that there was fault in that process to warrant an investigation.
I note the outcome Miss X wants from her complaint is for the Council to review its current policy to allow for angled parking or take account of residents with smaller vehicles. Unrelated to the complaint, the Council says its vehicle crossover policy is due for review in early 2023, and would include a consultation process with residents. This would provide Miss X with the opportunity to give her views on policy changes she wants to see. There would be no different outcome investigation of her complaint would achieve for Miss X.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because: there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its implementation or adoption of its policy on vehicle crossover permissions when dealing with her application to justify us investigating; investigation would not achieve a different outcome for her.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman