Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the installation of a disabled parking bay adjacent to Ms X’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s instalment of a disabled parking bay which blocks the footpath outside her home and for which her permission had not been sought. She says the location of the bay has made it difficult for her to access her property and that it should be moved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to her complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X complained to the Council because a disabled parking bay was installed by the Council adjacent to her property without her consent. She said its presence makes it difficult for her to access her own home and asked that it be moved.
7. The Council explained that its procedures require applicants for disabled parking bays to sign that they have consulted their neighbours and that it has to take their word that they have done so. It further explained that where the applicant’s property boundaries are narrower than the actual bay to be provided then there will be some overhang on to adjacent property boundaries.
8. The Council explained that it was not the presence of the bay itself that was causing Ms X problems but that vehicles in her road commonly park on the footway to enable vehicles to travel along the road. It told Ms X that pavement parking was a matter for the police to address. As requested, it gave Ms X details of how she could apply for a disabled parking bay which would be assessed against the Council’s criteria and which if approved would require it to look at altering the length of the bay already installed.
9. While Ms X’s frustration with cars parked over the footpath is understandable, it is this as opposed to the presence of the disabled bay which is affecting her access to her property. At the current time the police are the enforcing authority for pavement parking and not the Council. As there is no evidence to suggest fault affected the Council’s decision to install the bay, we will not investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman