Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his application for a vehicle crossover. This is because the information does not indicate the Council’s decision was affected by fault.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council wrongly refused his application for a vehicle crossover. Mr B says other properties nearby have been allowed a crossover and the Council’s decision prevents him buying an electric vehicle.

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 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 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr B. I also considered the Council’s vehicle crossover guidance and have viewed Mr B’s property on Google Streetview.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council refused Mr B’s application for a vehicle crossover because there is a layby in front of his property. There is no information to indicate the Council’s decision was affected by fault. The Council’s decision was in line with its guidance which says the Council does not allow vehicle accesses in parking laybys.
6. Vehicle crossovers nearby may be unauthorised or approved under previous Council policies. This does not mean the Council was at fault for applying its current guidance to Mr B’s application.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because the information does not indicate the Council’s decision was affected by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman