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.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a vehicle crossover. Mr X says the Council used outdated guidance in reaching its decision and the grass area to the front of his property is not used as a public amenity.
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 considered the Council’s current Vehicle Cross Over (VCO) Application Criteria (October 2021) which is published on its website.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X applied to the Council for a vehicle crossover.
The Council refused his application due to the large, grassed amenity area to the front of Mr X’s property which measured 9 metres. It explained that requests to sever or cross large expanses of grass will most likely be refused due to the negative impact on the street scene, the impact on highway drainage and the potential to introduce an unsafe environment for children who may use the area for recreation.
Mr X appealed the Council’s decision and provided additional information about his circumstances, the lack of parking and the use of the grassed area.
The Council considered the additional information Mr X provided but decided to maintain its original decision in line with its published vehicle crossover criteria.
The Council’s current published Vehicle Cross Over Application Criteria states: “Grass and other amenity areas - There are many grassed expanses in local housing areas within the county that have been designated to enhance the local amenity of the area. WSCC may consider any grassed area an amenity area, however we are more likely to consider the length of verge/grass from the kerb to the private residence of 3.0m of grassed area to be an amenity area.
Requests to cross and/or sever large expanses of grass amenity areas will most likely be refused. This is due to the negative impact on the street scene, the impact on highway drainage and the potential to introduce an unsafe environment for children that may use the area for recreation. Further to this there have been many instances where residents use this space as additional private parking areas that can affect the visibility and hence safety of other road users.”
Whilst I acknowledge Mr X’s dissatisfaction with the Council’s decision there is no sign of fault by the Council here. It has considered and decided his application in line with its published eligibility criteria which apply to all current applications. Mr X says the Council has relied on outdated guidance in making its decision however the Council’s current guidance was updated only 2½ years ago and so is not outdated. It considered the information Mr X provided and refused the application in line with its current criteria. It is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to say the Council should have reached a different decision where, as here, there is no sign of fault in the way in which the decision was reached.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman