Summary: Mrs B says the Council delayed providing her with a disabled residents parking bay and wrongly made her undergo a mobility assessment. The Council delayed processing Mrs B’s application which means she had to wait longer for a disabled parking bay than she should have done. The Council was not at fault for asking Mrs B to have a mobility assessment. An apology and financial payment is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs B, complained the Council:
• delayed providing her with a disabled residents parking bay; and
• required her to undergo a mobility assessment when that was not required.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mrs B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• considered Mrs B’s comments on my draft decision; and
• gave the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. The Council’s procedure for disabled resident parking bays requires the resident to complete an application form. Until October 2018 the Council would then carry out a mobility assessment. If the outcome of the mobility assessment is positive the Council carries out a feasibility test. That is to decide whether the proposed location for the parking bay is suitable. If it is the Council batches the application with other approved applications and applies for a traffic regulation order. That involves statutory consultation. After the statutory consultation if the Council receives no objections it implements the disabled parking bay.
6. The Council has not identified the date it received Mrs B’s completed application. However, Mrs B signed the application in June 2018 and an officer carried out a desk based assessment later that month. The Council then sent Mrs B a letter in July 2018, inviting her to a mobility assessment later that month. The Council approved Mrs B’s application after that assessment.
7. The Council wrote to Mrs B in July 2018 to say it would carry out a feasibility study to decide if the proposed location for the disabled residents parking place was feasible. The Council said if it approved the application implementing the bay could take between 6-9 months.
8. The Council’s process changed in October 2018. From that point a different team handled the applications which now did not need a mobility assessment. The Council did not carry out a feasibility study until February 2019. By that point the Council had received more applications than normal and its implementation period had changed to 9-12 months.
9. The Council’s intent was to advertise the proposed traffic regulation order in January 2020 and then complete Mrs B’s disabled resident parking place in February 2020 if it did not receive any objections. That has now changed to April 2020 for installation.

Analysis

10. Mrs B says she completed an application for a disabled residents parking bay in early 2017 and the Council failed to approve her application until June 2019. Mrs B says this delayed provision of the parking bay until 2020. Mrs B says she struggles to walk from wherever she can park in her street which causes her discomfort and pain.
11. Having considered the documentary evidence I cannot confirm the Council received a completed application form from Mrs B in 2017. Although Mrs B has provided copies of her own emails to the Council querying what was happening with her application in October 2017 none of the Council responses confirm it had received a completed application from her. Instead, the documentary evidence suggests Mrs B’s contact in October 2017 prompted the Council to send out an application form in November 2017. Without any documentary evidence to show the Council received an application in 2017 I could not say the delay providing Mrs B’s parking bay began in 2017.
12. Instead the documentary evidence I have seen satisfies me, on the balance of probability, the Council received a completed application from Mrs B towards the end of June 2018. Although the Council says it did not send the application form to Mrs B until 14 July 2018 and its records for receiving an application in June 2018 are mistaken I am satisfied it is likely Mrs B provided a completed application form in June 2018. I take that view because the documentary records show Mrs B signed the form in June 2018, an officer carried out a desk-based assessment the same month and sent Mrs B a letter, inviting her to a mobility assessment at the beginning of July 2018.
13. I have seen no evidence the Council took any action following Mrs B attending a mobility assessment in July 2018 until it carried out a feasibility study to decide if the proposed location for the bay was suitable in February 2019. That delay is fault. I consider that delay occurred partly because the Council mislaid Mrs B’s application during the time when processing applications transferred from one department to another and partly due to the delay processing new applications while the new team was trained. The delay is significant because when Mrs B completed her mobility assessment the wait time for parking bays was 6-9 months. When the Council carried out the feasibility study in February 2019 the wait time had increased to 9-12 months due to increased applications caused by the Council changing the criteria.
14. I consider if the Council had carried out the feasibility study promptly following completion of the mobility assessment it is likely Mrs B would have had to wait only 6-9 months for implementation of the parking bay. Taking into account the delay carrying out the feasibility study I consider Mrs B has missed out on having a parking bay for around 9-12 months longer than she should have. To remedy that injustice I recommended the Council apologise to Mrs B, pay her £250 to reflect the time and trouble she had to go to pursuing her complaint and an additional £250 to reflect the impact the delay providing the parking bay had on her. I also recommended in future if the Council changes the process for considering applications which requires training of new staff it ensure training takes place before the handover happens so applications are not delayed. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
15. Mrs B says the Council required her to have a mobility assessment which was not required. I am satisfied though the procedure the Council followed before it transferred the processing of the applications to the new team required a mobility assessment. Only when the procedure changed did the Council no longer require a mobility assessment. The procedure changed in October 2018. However, Mrs B put in her application in June 2018. The Council was therefore right to refer Mrs B for an occupational therapy assessment. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it.

Back to top

Agreed action

16. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mrs B for the delay providing her with a disabled parking bay; and
• pay Mrs B £500.
17. Within two months of my final decision the Council should implement the disabled parking bay at Mrs B’s address, providing it has not received any objections during the consultation process.
18. If the Council changes the process for considering applications again and that requires training of new staff it should ensure training takes place before the handover happens.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman