The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it decided whether Mr X could extend the vehicle access to his driveway.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council has not allowed him to extend the vehicle access to his driveway. Mr X says he was not aware the access to his driveway already had the maximum permitted width of dropped kerbs and if he had known he would not have applied.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We cannot question whether an organisation’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) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
As part of this investigation, I considered the information provided by Mr X and the information provided by the Council. I sent a draft of this decision to mr X and the Council for comments.
What I found
The Council’s Policy The policy has been in place since 2009. The policy says the maximum width for a crossover is five dropped kerbs and two ramped kerbs (4.5m). The Council’s website states you can only extend an existing vehicle crossing if the vehicle crossings dropped distance is no wider than 4.5 meters (5 kerb lengths).
What happened Mr X applied to extend his existing vehicle crossing in early December 2021. He wanted to extend the number of dropped kerbs from 5 to 9. He paid the application fee of £158.
On 13 December 2021, the Council told Mr X his application was unsuccessful as he already had 5 dropped kerbs along the vehicle access to his driveway and this was the maximum number allowed. The Council also said the criteria is set out on its website and applicants are asked to confirm they have reviewed these before submitting their application.
Mr X responded to the Council and said the criteria was poorly worded and he would not have applied had he known he already had the maximum number of drops along his vehicle access point. Mr X asked the Council to consider this as a formal complaint.
On 16 December 2021, Mr X appealed the Council’s decision to refuse his application. Mr X said trying to exit his driveway was dangerous as there was not much room due to cars parking on the opposite side of the road. Mr X told the Council he collided with a car trying to exit his driveway.
On 23 December 2021, the Council provided its final response to Mr X. The Council said Mr X ticked the box on his application which meant he knew the application fee was non-refundable. The Council also told Mr X it had already explained why his application did not meet the criteria.
In January 2022 Mr X contacted the Council in relation to his appeal. The Council responded to Mr X on 19 January 2022 and said it cannot review this matter further. The Council said it cannot allow more than the permitted number of dropped kerbs for a single property, therefore Mr X’s application was declined.
Analysis I have not found the Council at fault for deciding not to approve Mr X’s application. The Council’s decision was in-line with its policy and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it was reached. The decision is a matter of professional judgement and there is no basis for us to question it.
In relation to the application fee, I am satisfied Mr X would have been aware this was non-refundable as this was stated in the application criteria.
I recognise Mr X’s point that the information the Council referred him to in its criteria was unclear, as it does not specifically say five kerb lengths was the maximum permitted. However, the Council’s website further details in the questions section that if an applicant is seeking to extend an existing vehicle crossing, as Mr X was, they can only do this if the crossing is less than five kerb lengths (4.5 metres). Therefore, I am satisfied Mr X should have been aware of this when applying and cannot say the Council is at fault.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation and found the Council was not at fault for how it decided not to approve Mr X’s application to extend the vehicle access to his driveway.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman