The Ombudsman's final decision
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 no sign of fault by the Council as it has considered and decided Mr X’s application in line with its current published policy for crossover applications.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his 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 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) We do not start an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Council’s current vehicle crossover policy (April 2019).
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X applied to the Council for a vehicle crossover. The application was refused due to the location of a street tree in front of his property. The Council’s tree section did not support the crossover application as the tree could not be relocated due to its size and age and installation of a crossover at such close proximity to the tree would interfere with its root network system. Also, the tree is in a healthy condition and contributes to the street scene.
The Council told Mr X a dig could be carried out to check the location of the tree’s roots, but this would be at Mr X’s expense. Mr X does not consider it fair that he should have to pay for this. He would like the Council to bear the cost of digging the site.
The Council’s domestic vehicle footway crossover policy which is published on its website clearly sets out how applications in close proximity to a street tree will be considered and decided. The Council’s crossover application form states applicants must read the vehicle crossover policy before applying and asks applicants to tick to confirm they have done so on the form.
It states: Section 4.6.1 Highway trees: ‘A crossover may be refused if excavation will unduly disturb the root protection zone of any trees located on the highway, this zone is essentially the area of ground covered by the tree canopy and is calculated by measuring the circumference of the tree at chest height (1.5m) and multiplying by a factor of four (as defined by National Joint Utilities Guidelines)’ ‘Should the proposed Vehicle Crossover fall into the precautionary area it may be necessary for a trial excavation to be carried out to establish the feasibility of installing the Crossover without due root disturbance. The cost of this will be borne by the applicant.'
The Council’s correspondence to Mr X on this matter clearly sets out the current criteria under which his application has been considered and explains why, in line with the policy, it has been refused.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council as it has considered and decided Mr X’s application in line with the current published policy. There is nothing further we could add to the response and explanation already provided by the Council which clearly sets out the process by which his application has been considered and why it was refused.
We are not an appeal body and we cannot consider the merits of decisions a council makes where there is no fault in the process by which a decision is reached.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman