The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Ms X’s application for a vehicle crossover. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a vehicle crossover.
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 may decide not to start an investigation if 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, we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (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 current vehicle crossover application criteria.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X applied for a vehicle crossover in front of her property.
The Council refused the application because the space in Ms X’s front garden does not meet the Council’s minimum space criteria for creation of a vehicle crossover. This requires a minimum length of 4.8 metres from the back of the footway or vehicle boundary to the front of the property and a minimum width of 2.4 metres.
Ms X appealed the Council’s decision. The Council did not uphold the appeal because the application does not meet the criteria.
Miss X highlighted other existing crossovers locally which do not meet the current guidance. The Council explained the criteria has been reviewed and amended over the years and as a result some existing crossovers agreed under previous criteria do not meet the current requirements.
The Council’s guidance states ‘Crossovers have been permitted in the past which are less than our current minimum of 4.8m. Unfortunately, in some instances this has led to potential safety issues with cars overhanging pavements and vehicles undertaking several manoeuvres across a pavement to access a hardstanding. To ensure this does not occur again we no longer permit any VCOs with less than 4.8m hardstanding depth.’
Ms X says the parking issue locally is causing her panic attacks and she has to curtail her social outings in order to get herself and her children home and get a parking space close to her home. Her car was also recently knocked whilst parked on the street.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council as it has clearly decided Ms X’s application in line with the published vehicle crossover application criteria. We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to question decisions the Council makes where there is no sign of fault in how the decision has been reached.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman