Summary: Mr X complains that the Council delayed his application for a disabled parking bay. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way the Council reached its decision

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has delayed processing his application for a disabled parking bay.

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. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the complaint made by Mr X. I made enquiries of the Council and considered information about the process for installing a bay. I sent Mr X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and considered the comments I received before issuing my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled parking bay

5. People must supply documents to support the application. The application may be returned or delayed if they do not supply the supporting evidence.
6. The application form explains that the process can take up to one year. If the application is approved the Council initially provides an advisory bay.
7. The bay only becomes enforceable once approved by a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). The Council submits TROs twice a year.

What happened in this case

8. Mr X submitted an application for a disabled parking bay in November 2018. The Council said the application form was incomplete as Mr X had not supplied a vehicle registration document or lease agreement and his driver’s license in the new address was missing. The Council explained this to Mr X by telephone on 9 November 2018.
9. In January 2019 Mr X provided the Council with a copy of his vehicle hire certificate for his mobility car. He also provided a copy of a letter from the DVLA, sent to his new address, confirming receipt of his application. The Council spoke to Mr X on the telephone and acknowledged receipt of the documents but explained to Mr X that his driver’s license in the new address was still missing. The Council told him that the next batch of TROs would be considered in April 2019. On 11 February 2019 Mr X sent the Council a copy of his vehicle registration document. The Council acknowledged receipt of the document by email on the same day and explained that the Council was still waiting for a copy of his updated driver’s license
10. The Council received a copy of Mr X’s drivers license in May 2019 and said it could not consider the application until the next batch of TRO’s were considered in September 2019. The bay was advertised to be made legally enforceable on 27 September 2019 and installed early November 2019.
11. Mr X complains that the Council delayed processing his application for a disabled parking bay and had to pay £95 per month to rent a garage. He wants a refund of the money he paid for the garage.

The Council’s response to the draft decision

12. In my draft decision I found fault with the Council for failing to consider the letter from the DVLA and whether there were exceptional circumstances for officers to exercise their discretion and submit a TRO in April 2019. I found that the Council had fettered its discretion which caused Mr X uncertainty, as he could not be certain that if the Council had considered the letter from the DVLA, it would have submitted the TRO in April 2019.
13. The Council responded to my draft decision and said it requires the documentary proof before proceeding to the formal TRO stage for enforcing a disabled parking bay, as it is a lengthy and costly legal process. It said that it had considered the letter from the DVLA but it provided no evidence about the status of Mr X’s application and no exceptional circumstances had been raised in any correspondence and communication by Mr X.

Analysis

14. The Council says that when allocating a disabled parking bay, it asks that all applicants comply with DVLA requirements to have their vehicle registered at the address where they live. This is to ensure that the driver of the vehicle is registered at the same address stated in the application. The letter to applicants which goes with the application form clarifies this by saying, “We will endeavour to make the bay legally enforceable within a year from your application”.
15. In January 2019 Mr X provided the Council with a copy of his vehicle hire certificate for his mobility car and a letter form the DVLA. The letter referred to Mr X’s recent application for a license and asked for more information about his medical condition. The letter did not say whether a new license would be issued. The Council says that it spoke to Mr X and confirmed receipt of the documents, but it did not confirm that this letter was sufficient to go ahead with the TRO. Mr X disputes this. It is also Mr X’s view that on receipt of this letter the Council should have contacted the DVLA for more information. I disagree, it was Mr X’s responsibility to provide the Council with information in support of his application in accordance with the Council’s published criteria.
16. On 11 February 2019 Mr X provided the Council with a copy of his vehicle registration document. The Council acknowledged receipt of the document by email on the same day and explained that it was still waiting for a copy of his updated driver’s license. Mr X disputes that the Council explained this to him, but I have seen a copy of the email.
17. The Council says that each application is considered on a case by case basis and on its own merits. Whilst Mr X had a disabled parking bay at his previous address, the Council still had to ensure that the criteria was met by Mr X, at his new address. I have reviewed Mr X’s correspondence with the Council and find no evidence of exceptional circumstances raised by Mr X, that would warrant the Council’s departure from its policy.
19. The Council applied its discretion when it installed an advisory bay in March 2019, before it received Mr X’s license. This meant that Mr X had access to a bay since March 2019. The Council told Mr X in December 2018 that TRO’s would be considered in April 2019. But, because it did not get his license until May 2019 it could not consider the application until the next batch are considered in September 2019. I am satisfied with this.
20. From the evidence I have seen the Council has properly considered Mr X’s application for a disabled parking bay. If Mr X had been able to supply all the documents before April 2019 then it is likely the Council would have been able to finalise the application in April.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I appreciate that Mr X will be disappointed, but I find no fault in the way the Council decided Mr X’s application for a disabled parking bay.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman