Summary: The Council was at fault for not considering the Armed Forces Covenant when deciding Mr X’s disabled parking bay application. The Council has agreed to reconsider Mr X’s application taking account of the Covenant.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider the Armed Forces Covenant when it decided his request for a disabled parking bay. Mr X believes this may have deprived him of a disabled parking bay, causing inconvenience when he holds meetings for other disabled people.

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. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and have discussed it with him.
5. I have also considered the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint and to my enquiries.
6. Mr 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

Armed Forces Covenant (‘the Covenant’)

7. The Armed Forces Covenant is a promise by the nation ensuring that those who serve or who have served in the armed forces, and their families, are treated fairly.
8. The Council signed an agreement which showed its commitment to upholding the key principles of the Covenant. These are:
• No member of the Armed Forces Community should face disadvantage in the provision of public and commercial services compared to any other citizen
• In some circumstances special treatment may be appropriate especially for the injured or bereaved.
9. When a council has signed up the agreement, it should ensure that all staff are aware of it, and what it means. It should not be necessary for a service-user to bring the Covenant to the Council’s attention. They should only need to mention they are military or ex-military personnel for it to trigger the Council to consider the Covenant in relation to the service-users request.

Council Disabled Bay policy

10. The Council’s policy sets out the criteria it will consider when deciding an application:
• The applicant must be a Blue Badge Holder.
• The applicant must be the driver, or regular passenger, of the space the vehicle is needed for.
• The vehicle must be based at the applicant’s property and the driver must also be resident.
• There must be no off-street parking available at or near the applicant’s property.

What happened

Background

11. Mr X is an ex-serviceman. He is registered blind and regularly holds meetings at his home for other disabled veterans.

Disabled Parking Bay application

12. Mr X applied for a disabled parking bay in September 2019. He explained he did not have a car registered at his address. He said he is part of a blind veterans’ charity and has a minibus pick him up on a regular basis which sometimes stays when he holds the meeting at his house. He said he has a driveway, but it is not large enough for the mini bus.
13. The Council wrote to Mr X in October to tell him it had rejected his application. It explained the main reason for refusal was the vehicle used by the Blue Badge holder was not registered at the property. Mr X phoned the Council as he was unhappy with the decision.
14. The Council wrote to Mr X in November. It explained the Council’s policy does not allow provision to mark a disabled parking bay for visitors in a residential area. It went on to say the Blue Badge holder must be a permanent resident of the property, who has a vehicle registered at the address, and where the driver of the vehicle (not necessarily the badge holder) also lives.

Mr X’s complaint

15. Mr X complained over the phone to the Council about its decision in November. From the evidence I have seen, during this call, Mr X said the Council had not conformed to a ‘military charter’. The Council wrote to Mr X in December to confirm he did not meet the eligibility criteria for the marking of a disabled parking bay and the Council had closed his application. It did not address the ‘military charter’ which we understand to be the Armed Forces Covenant.
16. In December, Mr X escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process.
17. The Council’s response to Mr X said that it was aware the Covenant allows for special consideration or treatment when considering the provision of the bay. However, experience has shown that an underused disabled bay is highly likely to be misused by other motorists. It went on to explain that the purpose of the policy clause requiring a vehicle to be based at the property is to reduce this misuse.

My findings

18. Mr X did not refer to the Armed Forces Covenant in his application for a disabled parking bay. However, from the outset, he was clear he needed the parking bay in relation to his role in a blind veteran’s society. The Council said, he only mentioned that he believed the Council’s decision was against a ‘military charter’ in his phone call when he complained.
19. The Council was not at fault when it used its policy to reach a decision on Mr X’s application. From the evidence I have seen, Mr X’s circumstances meant that he did not meet three of the four main criteria for approving a bay. Namely:
• Mr X is not the driver, or regular passenger, of the space the vehicle is needed for.
• The vehicle would not be based at Mr X’s property and the driver would not be resident.
• There is off-street parking available at Mr X’s property albeit too small for a minibus.
20. However, I have found fault with the Council for its failure to consider the Armed Forces Covenant when deciding Mr X’s original application. This fault caused Mr X an injustice as he was denied the opportunity to have his application properly considered.
21. The Armed Forces Covenant is in place to ensure that military and ex-military personnel are treated fairly. The Covenant states in some cases, special treatment should be considered. Mr X effectively asked the Council to agree his application outside its normal rules (the Council’s policy for disabled parking bays), is asking for special treatment.
22. It is not for me to decide whether the Council should have given Mr X’s request special treatment, and whether this should have resulted in the approval of a disabled parking bay. Only the Council can decide this.
23. I have investigated whether the Council has properly considered the Covenant when reaching its decision. It is not important that Mr X did not mention the covenant until late on in the process (complaint stage). He mentioned in his original application he is part of a blind veteran’s charity. This information should have triggered the Council to request further information to determine whether it needed to consider the Covenant.
24. From the evidence I have seen, the Council was unaware of the Covenant and the effect it might have on its decision about Mr X’s application. I am not saying the Council should approve Mr X’s application. However, it should properly consider whether Mr X’s circumstances, mean he should be offered special treatment. The Council’s final decision may be the same. I cannot question this if it has been properly reached.

Back to top

Agreed Action

25. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Reconsider Mr X’s disabled parking bay application, taking account of his veteran status and considering the Armed Forces Covenant.
2. Ensure that all Council staff are made aware of the Armed Forces Covenant and informed of how they may need to consider it as part of their role at the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault for not considering the Armed Forces Covenant when it reached its decision to refuse Mr X’s Disabled Parking Bay application. The Council has agreed to reconsider Mr X’s application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman