The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his request to extend his vehicle crossover. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has failed to properly consider his request for an extended vehicle crossover (dropped kerb).
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Background
Mr X has a disability which affects his mobility. He has an existing vehicle crossover at his property but would like to extend it to allow safer and easier access to and from the public highway for his wheelchair-accessible van.
The Council’s guidance says the standard permitted width for a vehicle crossover is 4.5m; it has discretion to extend crossovers to a maximum of 6.4m where there are good reasons.
Mr X asked the Council about extending his vehicle crossover and it has agreed in principle to agree the maximum width of 6.4m. Mr X would like the crossover to be wider still and suggested a width of 10m, but the Council considers 10m to be excessive. Mr X says he is open to negotiation and would like to agree a compromise with the Council.
My assessment
The Council charges a fee for vehicle crossover applications to cover the costs of processing the application and assessing the request. Mr X has not yet applied to extend his crossover and has paid no fee. The Council has considered his request and advised him what it considers acceptable, but it has not refused his application. The Council’s actions have not therefore caused Mr X significant injustice.
If Mr X is not satisfied with the Council’s advice he may apply to make the vehicle crossover wider. As part of his application he can ask the Council to contact him to discuss the width prior to making a decision, to see if there is any chance the Council will agree to extend the crossover to more than 6.4m. If the Council refuses, and if Mr X disagrees with the decision, he may appeal under its appeals process and complain to us.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and its advice did not cause Mr X significant injustice in any event.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman