The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse him highways permission for a vehicle crossover at his property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes to warrant us investigating.
The complaint
Mr X wants a vehicle crossover, to allow him to park on his front driveway. He has been seeking highways permission from the Council for a crossover for several years. Mr X complains the Council has: unfairly refused him permission for a crossover; refused to meet him at his property to discuss the matter; recently given permission for a crossover to one of his neighbours, who has also been seeking one for many years; made its decision using outdated policy.
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 impact 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 or continue 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 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 from Mr X, relevant online documents and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
We are not an appeal body. We may only go behind a council’s decision if there is fault in the decision-making process officers have followed and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. We cannot replace a council’s view with our or someone else’s opinion. So we consider the processes councils have followed when making their decisions.
In response to Mr X, the Council’s officers considered information about his property and referred to their current adopted vehicle crossover policy. They determined the property was not suited to a vehicle crossover because it did not meet their policy criteria. Officers confirmed: the distance between the front elevation of Mr X’s property and the back of the pavement did not meet the policy’s minimum depth; the sight line for vehicles exiting his property would be impeded by a tree; construction of the crossover would result in the loss of a parking space available to all within the controlled parking zone (CPZ) Officers have also mentioned the proposed crossover’s proximity to a road bend and junction could result in dangerous situations caused on the highway, and its installation may adversely affect the roots and therefore the condition of the nearby tree.
The Council determined these issues meant the property did not comply with its crossover policy so refused highway permission. Officers gathered relevant evidence to inform their decision and applied the Council’s current policy when deciding Mr X’s property is unsuitable for a crossover. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision‑making process here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
We realise Mr X has sought site visits and discussions from the Council. But officers could gather the details needed about Mr X’s property from online maps and resources, and from information he sent in. It is for officers to decide whether they need to visit a site and discuss a case to get the information required for their decision. It is not fault in the decision‑making process for them to opt not to visit and meet where the relevant information needed to assess a property against a policy is available to them by other means.
We note Mr X says other properties in the area have crossovers while having similar locations or layouts to his. It is not evidence of Council fault that other nearby properties have crossovers. Some will have been installed under different Council policies; others will comply with the Council’s current policy even if they are in the same street or area because their locations and circumstances are different from Mr X’s property. Officers have explained to Mr X that the recent nearby crossover permission was granted because that property met its policy criteria. If the Council has made errors in granting other crossover permissions, that may be fault. But that would not give us grounds to recommend to a council as a complaint outcome that it must repeat that fault at someone else’s property.
We realise Mr X may believe the Council’s crossover policy is outdated. From the correspondence with the Council he has provided, it appears he considers the policy does not take sufficient account of the needs of those with plug-in chargeable electric vehicles. The Council adopted its current policy, which it applied here, in January 2021. We cannot overturn or go behind a properly adopted council policy. While Mr X may disagree with the contents of or omissions from the policy, there is not enough evidence here to show the Council’s decision to adopt it involved any fault to justify us investigating.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman