The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a vehicle crossover. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a vehicle crossover. Mrs X says the Council has not properly considered her circumstances in refusing the application.
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 do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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 how the organisation made its decision, 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 also considered the Council’s Residential domestic vehicle crossover policy (April 2019).
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs X applied for a vehicle crossing in front of her property. The Council refused the application because it did not meet the published eligibility criteria for the granting of crossovers as set out in its policy. This is because the proposed crossover was only 4.5 m from a junction.
The Council’s policy states: “The distance from a new or extended edge of an existing crossover to the nearest junction shall be at least 10 m.” This is to ensure road safety Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision. She explained that when she moved into the property she thought there was a vehicle crossing in place and so they parked on the driveway. They later realised the kerb was not dropped and there was no vehicle crossing in place. They improved the property frontage and installed an electric vehicle charger before applying for the vehicle crossing.
The Council considered the additional information Mrs X provided but upheld its decision in line with its policy. It also informed Mrs X it was illegal to cross the public footway by car to access the property frontage without a vehicle crossing in place and it could seek to recover costs to repair any damage caused or install street furniture in order to protect the highway.
Mrs X says the Council has not taken into account the circumstances of the property purchase which was during the Covid-19 pandemic. She says the seller did not respond to her questions about the driveway and crossover during the buying process and she only viewed the property once. Mrs X says the driveway has been in use for over 15 years without incident. Without the vehicle crossing she is unable to charge her electric vehicle on her property frontage. They have two cars but only qualify for one parking permit and they need both cars for work and access to childcare.
Whilst I acknowledge Mrs X’s dissatisfaction with the Council’s decision to refuse her application there is no sign of fault by the Council here. It considered, decided and refused Mrs X’s crossover application in line with its current eligibility criteria set out in its published policy which apply to all applicants. The presence of local historically granted crossings, which would not meet the current criteria, is not relevant to the Council’s decision to refuse Mrs X’s application now. Policies will evolve and change over time for many reasons including improved consideration of safety concerns and so other existing crossovers may not meet the current criteria. New applications need to meet the current criteria.
I note Mrs X’s comments about not realising there was no dropped kerb in place at the time she purchased the property. However, this is not due to any fault by the Council. This is an issue which could have been checked and confirmed during checks and searches carried out by her legal representative during the property buying process. Ultimately, Mrs X chose to proceed with the purchase on the basis of the information she had at the time. Should she consider this was not adequately checked she could raise this with the legal representative who dealt with the property purchase. It is not a matter for the Council or the Ombudsman and it is not relevant to the Council’s’ decision on her application.
The Council considered the information Mrs X provided about her circumstances and decided it did not impact its decision to refuse her application. This is a decision the Council was entitled to make, in line with its policy. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to question the merits of a council’s decisions where, as here, there is no sign of fault in the way it was reached,
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman