Summary: Mr X complained about the Council refusing to provide an advisory disabled parking bay outside his home. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s refusal to provide an advisory disabled parking space outside his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Mr X has been given the opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X normally parks his car on the street outside his home. He asked the Council to provide a disabled parking bay to ensure he can always access his home. The Council told him the location of his home does not make it suitable for a bay. He lives close to a turning-head in a cul de sac and there are parking bays immediately opposite his home a matter of feet away. The Council suggested it could create a disabled space in one of the bays, but Mr X wishes to park on the street.
5. The Council is the highway authority and it must decide where bays can be provided. It has given Mr X a reasonable explanation as to why it will not create a bay in the limited space of the cul de sac. The Council has not required Mr X to stop parking on the street even though there may be times when it could be an obstruction.
6. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. In this case the Council has explained the reasons why it would not create a bay for disabled drivers to park in and we would not question the merits of the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman