Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his application for a vehicle crossover. This is because the complaint is late and it is unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council refused his application for a vehicle crossover (dropped kerb).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X initially applied for a vehicle crossover in 2022. The Council refused his application but following Mr X’s further contact it agreed to consider the matter further. However it said he would first need to discuss the matter with a utility company which had a box in the pavement that could be affected by installing the crossover.
8. The utility company confirmed it had no objection and that there were two options to install a vehicle crossover. Mr X referred the matter back to the Council but it refused his application again. Mr X is unhappy with its decision, which he says is based on the same reason it gave for refusing his initial application.
9. Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision is late. Mr X complained to the Council on 11 July 2023 but he did not bring his complaint to us about it until 16 July 2024. Mr X says his wife has suffered several bereavements but I do not consider this provides grounds for us to exercise our discretion to investigate the matter further.
10. It is also unlikely, on balance, that the Council would change its decision on Mr X’s application even if we were to investigate and recommend it reconsiders it. This is because it has refused his application twice already, giving the same reasons each time. It has also agreed to refund its administration fee by way of a remedy for Mr X’s raised expectations regarding his contact with the utility company and this provides a suitable remedy for this aspect of his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is late and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate it. It is also unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman