The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council deciding it does not have planning or other powers to require a nearby resident to amend their new vehicle and pedestrian accesses which open on to Mr X’s street. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision‑making process to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X lives at the end of a cul-de-sac. The end of the cul-de-sac forms a boundary with the rear garden of a property on a different nearby street. Mr Y, the owner of that property, has installed a vehicle and pedestrian access in the boundary, opening on to the cul-de-sac.
Mr X complains the Council has incorrectly decided it has no powers to control the access installed by Mr Y.
Mr X says use of the new access will cause obstructions for him when parking his car at his own property. He says the access will cause obstructions for others, including for him, and restrict the use of the cul-de-sac’s turning area. Mr X wants the Council to require Mr Y to move the access so it is further towards the other side of the street.
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. (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 Mr X, relevant online maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
We can only go behind a council’s decision if there is evidence of fault in the officers’ decision-making process which, but for that fault, a different decision would have been made.
In response to Mr X’s concerns, officers considered the location and determined that his street is an unclassified road. The Council determined no planning permission is required for the new access on to the street because only classified roads require planning permission for the installation of vehicle crossings. This is the approach taken by councils nationally.
I understand Mr X believes officers do have or should have other powers to order Mr Y to amend the new access. As part of their decision-making process, officers considered whether they had other powers which would allow the Council to do what Mr X wanted, and determined that they did not have any. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council officers’ decision‑making process here to warrant us investigating. I recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman