Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is discriminating against disabled people and preventing the use of disabled parking. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, says the Council discriminated against her family and prevented them from using the disabled parking. Ms X wants the Council to change the terms of use for a venue.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and information about the venue. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Ms X and her family spend an annual holiday in the area and have a favourite cliff top car park where they enjoy the view. Ms X’s mother has mobility problems and the family use the disabled parking.
5. The family visited in 2021 but their visit was disrupted by people who had hired a function room next to the car park. Ms X says the people who hired the room put up a gazebo, in front of the disabled parking, which spoilt the view and obscured the view of an air show. She says they were disturbed by music, found it hard to use the toilets due to the long queue, and a man insisted on sitting on a bench even though the family explained their mother was vulnerable to COVID-19. Ms X says the people used public areas even though they had hired the room. Ms X and her family could not enjoy the visit and left early. Ms X complained to the Council and alleged there had been disability discrimination.
6. The Council explained the room can be hired and people can also use the surrounding public spaces. It said there was no evidence the people had broken any rules and there would have been pressure on space and toilets due to people visiting for the air show. The Council explained the man was entitled to sit on the bench and sitting on a public bench did not breach any covid rules. The Council said the location was not a designated place to watch the air show and there were other car parks the family could have used. The Council said there were no problems with the hire of the room.
7. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council provides disabled parking but it does not have a duty to ensure the parking provides an unrestricted view. It cannot control the pressures on public facilities caused by the number of visitors. I have read the terms and conditions for hiring the room and there is nothing to suggest anyone broke the rules. The people were entitled to use the room, put up a gazebo and use the public space including the bench. The family felt the man posed a risk to their mother when he sat on the bench but, as he was not breaking any covid rules, this was a private matter between the man and the family. I appreciate Ms X felt their visit was disrupted by the people using the room but there is nothing to suggest this flows from fault by the Council or that what happened is due to discrimination.

Back to top

Final decision

8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman