Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a vehicle crossover. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a vehicle crossover to the front of his property to resolve his current parking difficulties.

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. 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), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Council’s Vehicle Cross Over Application Criteria.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complained to the Council about its decision to refuse his application for a vehicle crossover. The Council refused the application because Mr X’s property is in a Controlled Parking Zone.
9. Mr X provided additional information about his family’s circumstances in support of his application. The Council considered the information Mr X provided but upheld its original decision to refuse it and explained its reasons.
10. The Council’s Vehicle Cross Over Application Criteria sets out the criteria under which all applications are assessed. This is published on its website. It advises applicants to check they meet the criteria before submitting an application. The Application Criteria states:

“Controlled Parking Bays/Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ)/Residents Parking Scheme – Parking bays, which are usually delineated with a white bay marking and an associated time plate, have been placed due to the need to control local parking in response to high demand. The demand may be from commuter parking or local amenities such as shops or leisure facilities. When receiving a request where there is an existing parking bay, officers will consider current and future demand in the area and may engage with local stakeholders before making a decision. which will be on a case-by-case basis. Please note you are highly likely to be refused.”

11. Whilst I acknowledge Mr X’s dissatisfaction with the Council’s decision to refuse his application and the difficulties he experiences with parking close to his home there is no sign of fault by the Council here. It has considered and decided Mr X’s application in line with the published eligibility criteria against which it assesses all applications. Its decision is one it is entitled to make. We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to question the Council’s decisions where, as here, there is no sign of fault in the way in which it has been reached.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman