The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s 2019 decision to revoke permission for a vehicle crossover at her home. Ms X complains late outside the permitted period of 12 months and there is no reason to exercise discretion to investigate.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council in early 2019 revoked its permission for a vehicle crossover/dropped kerb so she could park off the road in front of her home. Ms X says the Council had already allowed her neighbour to have a crossover in identical circumstances. She says the Council’s actions are not fair when the neighbour has not been required to remove his crossover. She says the neighbour cannot complete the work, the front area is unsightly and there is some subsidence. Ms X wants the Council to grant her a vehicle crossover. There is not enough space on the road for residents to park and her garage is at the rear of her property.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered Ms X’s information and comments. I have discussed the complaint with her by telephone and considered internet street scene photographs of the street.
My assessment
I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons: The complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because Ms X complains late being outside the ‘permitted period’ of 12 months (see paragraphs 2 and 3 above).
I will not exercise discretion to investigate because Ms X could have complained sooner. She tells me she has not had time to complain. The Council’s complaint reply, 22 July 2019, explained its position and gave details of this office should Ms X want to pursue the matter. The Council says its legal team also wrote to Ms X explaining the position regarding the highway. It refunded the licence fee to Ms X in recognition that it was an error to grant permission.
The situation of the two properties is not identical. One reason for the Council’s decision was that Ms X’s property has 3 metres depth to the front which is less than required in the guidance. The Council did not identify the highway boundary error which affected both properties until the neighbouring crossover was erected. Ms X tells me she has not had contact with the Council in the last 12 months. She may report her concerns about the neighbour’s land to the Council but there is no reason for this office to investigate.
Final decision
The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s 2019 decision to revoke permission for a vehicle crossover at her home. Ms X complains late outside the permitted period of 12 months and there is no reason to exercise discretion to investigate.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman