Summary: Mrs X complained the Council will not provide her with a dedicated disabled parking bay for her child. She also complained the disabled bay installed near her home was not big enough and it took too long for the Council to lengthen it. We found fault by the Council on all parts of Mrs X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, make Mrs X a payment in recognition of the inconvenience and uncertainty caused to her and reconsider her request for a dedicated disabled parking bay.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council will not provide a dedicated parking bay for her disabled child. Mrs X stated the Council is enforcing a blanket policy in this regard when it should treat each application on a case-by-case basis.
2. Mrs X also complained the bay installed by the Council was too small making it difficult to use and it took too long to complete works to make the bay bigger.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. An organisation should not adopt a blanket or uniform approach or policy that prevents it from considering the circumstances of a particular case. We may find fault in the actions of organisations that ‘fetter their discretion’ in this way.
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. Part IV of the Act provides councils with the power to mark out parking bays for specific purposes, such as parking bays for disabled residents who hold a Blue Badge.

The Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility: A Guide to best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and transport Infrastructure

10. Section 8.4 of the guidance provides details on the best practice when providing on street parking for Blue Badge holders. It says:
• for a disabled parking bay to be enforceable a Traffic Regulation Order must be made by the traffic authority.
• for on-street parking bays parking parallel to the kerb the recommended size of the bay is 6600mm long and 2700mm wide.

Croydon Council’s Disabled Parking Bays policy

11. This sets out how the Council will deal with applications for a disabled parking bay. It says:
• disabled residents can apply for disable paring bay outside their home. The parking bay can be used by anyone that holds a Blue Badge.
• it can take up to six months to introduce a disabled parking bay because of the legal procedures involved.
• a person can apply if they have a Blue Badge, live at the address where they are requesting a disabled parking bay, don’t have any off-street parking they can use at their home and there is a shortage of on-street parking where they live.
• a disabled parking bay must not cause an obstruction on the highway, be a danger to other road users or be more than 50 metres from the applicant’s address.

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016

12. This is the legal framework governing the design and conditions of use for traffic signs on or near roads.

What happened

13. Mrs X lives in a home situated in a high traffic area. Her home does not have off street parking. She has an autistic child who has complex needs. She has a Blue Badge.
14. In January 2025 Mrs X applied to have a disabled parking bay outside her home to meet her child’s needs.
15. The Council began the legal process of making a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), which is necessary to make a disabled parking bay legal and enforceable. The process included serving public notices. It received no objections and it approved Mrs X’s application.
16. Mrs X asked the Council to make the bay for her dedicated use only. The Council said its policy does not allow dedicated bays.
17. In March Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision on her request for a dedicated bay. The Council’s reply reiterated that it does not provide disabled bays for the dedicated use of one resident. Its reply was 11 days late.
18. In late April Mrs X escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. She complained:

• the stage one complaint reply was generic and did not reference her child’s needs.
• other council’s provide disabled bays for the dedicated use of one resident
• other council’s provide larger disabled bays.

19. In late June the Council replied to Mrs X’s stage two complaint. It said:
• it was sorry if Mrs X found the Council’s stage one complaint to be generic and for any upset caused by her child’s needs not being referred to.
• acknowledged there were no disabled parking bays where Mrs X lived and that parking was problematic especially at weekends.
• reiterated that it does not offer disabled parking bays for the sole use of one resident. It said that to do so would require additional administrative processes.
• it does not display metal signage on disabled bays as this would incur additional maintenance and infrastructure costs.
• disabled parking bays which are on-street and parallel to the kerb are two metres wide.
• it received no objections in response to its consultation on introducing a disabled bay and the bay should be operational from late June.
20. In late June the disabled bay requested by Mrs X became operational.
21. In September Mrs X told the Council she would like the disabled bay to be made longer as drivers parking in neighbouring parking bays were encroaching into the bay making it difficult to use.
22. In October the Council agreed to lengthen the disabled bay by 1 metre. It would do this by re-marking neighbouring bays.
23. In November the Council placed an order with its contractor to lengthen the disabled bay.
24. From December onwards Mrs X chased the Council for updates on when the disabled parking bay would be lengthened.
25. Unhappy with the Council’s actions Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman. Her complaint remained the same however she added concerns about delay by the Council in increasing the length of the disabled bay and a failure to take enforcement action to prevent drivers without a blue badge using it. As part of her complaint, she provided photographs demonstrating her concerns and copies of her communications with the Council.
26. As part of our investigation, we made enquiries of the Council. It told us:
• the disabled bay it provided was 5.7 metres long and 2 metres wide. It is extending the length of the bay to 6.7 metres.
• delays in completing works to lengthen the bay were due to damp weather during the autumn and winter months. It also had problems accessing the bays it needed to alter to length the disabled parking bay. Works to lengthen the bay were completed in April.
• parking enforcement officers patrol the road where Mrs X’s lives and will issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) if a non-blue badge holder is parked in the disabled parking bay it installed.
• it does not provide dedicated disabled bays as these may not provide an advantage to residents over a general disabled bay. Providing dedicated bays would also require additional administrative processes.
• it does not put sign plates or posts on its disabled bays as these are not required by the TSRGD 2016.

Finding

27. Guidance from the Department of Transport states the length of an on-street parallel disabled parking bay should be 6.6 metres. The bay initially installed by the Council was 5.7 metres in length. We would expect the Council to comply with the measurements in the guidance unless there were good reason for it not to do so. The Council has not explained its departure from the guidance and so I find it actions amount to fault.
28. The failure to ensure the disabled bay meet the recommended length restricted Mrs X’s use of the bay as she could not always access her vehicle or park it. The bay was the incorrect length from its date of installation in June 2025 until late April 2026. This means Mrs X’s had problems using the bay for 10 months. This is injustice.
29. The TSRGD 2016 does not require the Council to display signage plates and posts for disabled bays. The Council’s actions meet the requirements of the relevant legislation and so it is not at fault.
30. Mrs X has told the Council about incidents where non blue badge holders have parked in the disabled bay installed. The Council has confirmed the road is subject to patrols by civic enforcement officers, and the bay is marked as for Blue Badge holders. I do not find the Council’s actions to be at fault.
31. The Council says it operates a blanket policy of not providing dedicated disabled parking bays. I am concerned about the Council implementing such an approach as there maybe circumstances where a dedicated disabled bay may be necessary to meet a disabled person’s needs. The Council’s blanket approach means it is fettering its discretion by not considering Mrs X’s reasons for requesting a dedicated bay. The Council’s approach means there is uncertainty about whether Mrs X’s circumstances warrant a dedicated bay. This is injustice.

Back to top

Agreed Action

32. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:

• Apologise to Mrs X for failing to make the disabled parking outside her home the correct length, for the delay in lengthening the bay and for fettering its discretion when considering her request for a dedicated disabled parking bay. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.

• Pay Mrs X £500 in recognition of the identified fault. This payment considers the inconvenience caused to Mrs X due to the disabled parking bay not being the correct length and the delays in lengthening the bay. It also considers the uncertainty caused by the Council’s handling of her request for a dedicated disabled parking bay.

• Reconsider Mrs X’s request for a dedicated disabled parking bay considering her personal circumstances. It should provide a reasoned decision in writing to Mrs X.

33. Within three months of my final decision the Council will review how it is considering requests for dedicated disabled parking bays to prevent it fettering its discretion. It should tell us what action it will take to do so.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

35. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman