The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for an extension to her existing footway crossing. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for an extension to her existing footway crossing. Mrs X says the Council’s decision is contradictory as the homes opposite hers have a long continuous dropped kerb. She also disagrees with the Council’s explanation around maintaining the street scene and potential flooding. Mrs X says she needs to park three cars on her driveway and without the extension she currently has to park her car partly on the pavement.
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 do not start an investigation if we decide 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Council’s current footway crossings policy (March 2023).
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs X applied to the Council for an extension to her existing footway crossing to enable her to park three cars on her driveway.
The Council refused the application because it exceeds the permitted width set out in its current vehicle crossing policy.
Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision. She said it was contradictory as there are several houses opposite hers with one continuous footway crossing and she has three cars which need to park on her driveway.
The Council considered Mrs X’s additional comments, but maintained its decision to refuse her application in line with its policy. It explained that the limit is in place in order to try to maintain the street scene and prevent flooding issues.
The Council’s current footway crossings policy states that applications for extensions to existing footway crossings will be considered up to the maximum width allowed (4.5 m or 5 lowered kerbs).
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because whilst I acknowledge Mrs X’s dissatisfaction with the Council’s decision there is no sign of fault by the Council here as it has considered and decided her application in line with its current published policy. The current eligibility criteria apply to all applications. The presence of local, previously agreed and installed, vehicle crossovers which do not meet the current criteria are not relevant to the Council’s decision on Mrs X’s application now. Policies will evolve and change over time for many reasons and so previously granted crossovers may well not meet the current criteria. We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to question the merits of a council’s decisions where, as here, there is no sign of fault in the way it was reached.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman