Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a disabled person’s parking bay which the Council installed outside the complainant‘s home in 2015. There is nothing to suggest fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, says the Council installed the wrong type of disabled person’s parking bay outside his home in 2015. He says this requires the Blue Badge to be left in the car. More recently, someone broke into his car and stole his mother’s Blue Badge.
2. The Council says in 2016 it began providing bays that do not require a Blue Badge to be left in the vehicle. However, it will not alter the type of bay outside Mr B’s home unless he pays a fee.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. It says we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr B which included the Council’s response to him. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. A complaint about the bay provided by the Council in 2015 is late and I do not consider there is good reason we should consider it now. Moreover, there is nothing to suggest fault in how the Council dealt with Mr B’s request for a bay at that time. The Council provided the type of bay that was then available. While it is unfortunate his car was broken into, this is not evidence of earlier fault by the Council.
7. There is no expectation the Council should change the type of bay retrospectively. If someone wants a bay altered, it is not unreasonable for the Council to charge a fee to do this.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because part of it is late and there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman