Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a vehicle crossing. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a vehicle crossing whilst other properties on her road had their applications granted. Mrs X also complained an officer was rude in his email correspondence on the matter and has treated her unfairly.

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. I also considered the Council’s current vehicle crossing guidance which is published on its website.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X applied to the Council for a vehicle crossing to the front of her property.
8. The Council refused the application because Mrs X’s property frontage does not meet the current minimum size criteria required for a vehicle crossover.
9. The guidance states that for a parking bay and vehicle crossing the measurements from the boundary between your property and the carriage way must allow a minimum 4.8m on unclassified roads from the front of your property wall to the back of the carriageway pavement. Mrs X’s property frontage measures only 4.5m.
10. Mrs X referred to other properties on the same road which had a vehicle crossing granted whilst hers was refused. The Council explained that these properties either met the current criteria or were originally granted under previous criteria.
11. Whilst I note Mrs X is dissatisfied with the Council’s decision to refuse her application, there is no sign of fault by the council here. It has considered, decided and refused her application in line with its current published vehicle crossing guidance. Mrs X’s property frontage does not meet the minimum size criteria.
12. We are not an appeal body and we cannot intervene or question the Council’s decision where, as here, there is no sign of fault in the way the Council made its decision.
13. Mrs X also complains a Council officer was rude in his correspondence on the matter and treated her unfairly. I can see no sign that Mrs X has been treated unfairly as her application was refused due to it not meeting the current published criteria. It has explained why other local applications were successful. Whilst I note Mrs X found the correspondence rude I have viewed the written correspondence and did not see any sign of fault there.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs 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