Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to place a disabled parking bay on the road in front of her property. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council and an investigation by this office would be unable to add to the response and explanation already provided via the Council’s previous investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about the Council’s decision to place a disabled parking bay on the road in front of her property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to place a disabled parking bay, for a neighbour, on the road in front of her property. Mrs X says if she had known the parking bay would be placed there she would not have purchased the property as it will reduce its value. She would like the Council to move the bay one space down so it is in front of her next-door neighbour’s property instead. The neighbour rents the property and does not have a car. Mrs X says the applicant, a child, is not physically disabled and so could walk the extra distance if the bay were to be moved.
8. In its complaint response, the Council explained it placed the proposed bay in the most suitable location for the applicant, close to their property. It will therefore not look to relocate it. The applicant is a valid blue badge holder and her application has been fully assessed. To move the parking bay would have a negative impact on the applicant as the bay is being provided in order to assist with a proven medical need to park close to their property.
9. The Council explained the bay is being placed on the public highway where Mrs X has no right to sole use for parking even if it is in front of her property.
10. In response to Mrs X’s comments about the applicant’s mobility, the Council explained the legislation and criteria for granting of a blue badge was recently amended to include applicants with non-visible disabilities.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council. It has clearly explained its decision and the reasons for it. It has placed the bay in what it considers to be the most suitable location for the applicant. This is a matter for the Council to assess and decide. We cannot question the merits of decisions where there is no sign of fault in the way it was reached. There is nothing further an investigation by this office could add to the response already provided via the Council’s previous investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman