Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council did not properly assess the parking conditions on their street when considering Mr X’s Personalised Disabled Bay application. The Council was not at fault and assessed the parking stress in line with its policy and we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain the Council will not allocate them a Personal Disabled Bay outside their home. They do not consider the Council properly assessed the parking conditions on their street.

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 have considered Mr and Mrs X’s complaint and have spoken to them about it.
5. I have also considered the Council’s response to Mr and Mrs X and to my enquiries.
6. Mr and Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation

Personalised Disabled Bay (PDB)

7. The Council’s website says a PDB is a parking bay for residents with severe disabilities. It goes on to say that they may be considered in extreme circumstances for Blue Badge holders that can only walk a very short distance in a highly congested street. The specific bay (usually near the disabled resident’s house) would only be available for a specific vehicle.
8. The Council has PDB policy and eligibility criteria. One of the considerations is the level of parking stress in the area. The parking stress assessment is the core of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint. The Council considers there to be a parking stress if 90% or more of the parking spaces within 50m of the applicant’s home are taken during CPZ hours.
9. The Guide does not specify when or how often the parking assessment needs to be carried out. The Council said, the criteria requires that ‘there is limited parking provision for the major part of most days’.

Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ)

10. A CPZ is an area where the Council has introduced restrictions on parking during certain times. Mr and Mrs X live in a CPZ where the restriction is in place Monday to Friday 8.30am-5.30pm. They have a residents’ parking permit which allows them to park in allocated parking bays during this time.
11. In response to my draft decision, the Council confirmed a recent resident consultation has informed the Council’s decision to increase CPZ hours to 9.30pm on weekdays and include Saturdays. It said, this will ensure that spaces are kept for residents and not used by visitors and non-permit holders.

What happened

12. Mr X has mobility problems and has a Blue Badge. Mr and Mrs X said their street gets very busy and they often cannot find a parking space near their house. Mrs X needs to drop Mr X at their door and then find a parking space. She says sometimes this is a few streets away and she need to walk back to their house. She says when it is dark, she feels unsafe walking alone as she has experienced antisocial behaviour.
13. Mr X applied to the Council for a Personalised Disabled Bay in March 2019.
14. The Council carried out a parking stress survey of Mr X’s street and surrounding streets on 25 March 2019 at 10.30am and 3pm. These times are during the CPZ hours. The Council said the results showed the parking occupancy was below the 90% threshold (78% and 86%) This concluded there was sufficient on-street parking and Mr X was not eligible for a PDB.
15. In September, Mr X complained to the Council about its decision. He argued that parking is worse on an evening and weekend when there are no parking controls. He added that their area is surrounded by flats, many of which are not allowed parking permits as part of the planning conditions. He said, these residents park on their street, outside CPZ hours, between 5.30pm on a Friday until 8.30am on a Monday taking spaces form residents who do have permits.
16. The Council responded to Mr X’s comments that parking is worse outside of CPZ hours. It said his Blue Badge and free resident parking permit should be sufficient to allow him to park close to their home. The Council also suggested his wife, Mrs X, could move the car when a suitable space became available.
17. Mr X escalated his complaint. In particular, he said it was not satisfactory for the Council to suggest his elderly wife should park the car and walk back to their house. He said antisocial behaviour was high in this area and it was not safe for his wife to walk alone.
18. In response to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint, the Council said it did not consider antisocial behaviour as part of a PDB assessment. It also said that site surveys are only carried out during the hours of CPZs.

My findings

Parking Stress

19. As part of my investigation, I asked the Council about the criteria it used to assess the level of parking provision on a street. It sent me the PDB criteria which showed, there is a parking stress for drivers if over 65% of the parking spaces are taken within 50m radius of applicant's residence. Parking stress level for passengers is when over 95% of spaces are taken within 100m radius of applicant's residence. These thresholds are different to the 90% referred to in the Council’s refusal letter to Mr X.
20. In response to my draft decision, the Council explained it had accidently sent me the criteria contained in a superseded policy for PDB. It apologised and confirmed Mr X’s application had been assessed against the 90% threshold to determine parking stress.

Timing of the Parking Survey

21. I also queried whether the frequency and timing of the parking stress survey carried out for Mr and Mrs X was adequate. The Council said it carried out a survey in the morning and in the afternoon on a typical weekday. It said, if stress level is not met on a typical day then will not qualify for major part of most days.
22. Mr and Mrs X complained the parking was worst on evenings and weekends, but the Council would only conduct the survey during CPZ hours. There is nothing in the guidance that specifies that surveys will only be done during this time.
23. In my draft decision, I considered the Council to be at fault for failing to survey the parking during the times identified by Mr and Mrs X.
24. In the Council’s response to my draft, it explained that parking spaces are at a premium outside CPZ times. It said, if it were to carry out stress surveys outside of CPZ times, in most cases, it would go above the 90% threshold and the Council would possibly need to facilitate PDBs for approximately 6500 Disabled Badge Holders in the Borough. It said this would create significant additional cost and pressure and could not be sustained. Given this new information, I understand the Council’s reason for restricting the stress surveys to within CPZ times and I no longer consider the Council to be at fault for restricting the times it carries out surveys.
25. As I mentioned in paragraph 11, the Council has confirmed that CPZ hours are to increase to 9.30pm on weekdays and include Saturdays. It said, this will ensure that spaces are kept for residents and not used by visitors and non-permit holders. This should hopefully go some way to alleviating the problems Mr and Mrs X experience. The Council said it could take 6 months before the extended hours are in place as the proposal will need to go through the formal approval process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman