Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse permission for a disabled parking bay. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr x complained about the Council’s decision to refuse permission for a parking bay outside his home. He is disabled and receives personal independence payment (PIP), and his wife needs to park close to the property so that she does not leave him alone in the car in case he has a seizure. The Council has refused his applications since 2018 and he feels this is unfair.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 or may decide not to continue with 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied for a disabled parking bay outside his home in 2018. He was refused by the Council because he did not meet the medical criteria for a bay. He applied again after qualifying for PIP which meets the medical requirements. The application was refused in 2019 because Mr X is not the driver, his wife required the space for his needs, but this does not meet the criteria. He applied again in 2020 and after being refused asked his MP to intervene on his behalf.
7. The MP was told by the Council that it would not provide a bay because Mr X is not the driver and because the location is not suitable for a bay in any event. It says that the road is too narrow and would require double yellow lines installing opposite to prevent parking blocking the road. This would require a Traffic Regulation Order and it is likely that other residents would object as part of the consultation due to loss of in street parking.
8. When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made, and if there is any fault in that process. In this case the Council is the highway authority and applications for disabled bays set out the medical criteria, driver requirement and that road safety is an important factor in determining each application.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse permission for a disabled parking bay. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman