Summary: Ms X complained the Council removed her advisory disabled parking bay outside her house. Ms X says she needs this disabled bay due to her medical conditions preventing her from walking far. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council removed her advisory disabled parking bay outside her house. Ms X says this happened because of a dispute with her neighbour rather than anything to do with the parking bay itself.
2. Ms X says she needs this disabled bay due to her medical conditions preventing her from walking far.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this report, we 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. We 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)
4. 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

5. I have considered all the information Miss X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
6. Miss X provided comments on my draft decision. The Council accepted the draft decision. I considered Miss X’s comments, but these did not justify a change to the decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council Policy on Advisory Parking Bays

7. The Council can install an advisory parking bay outside a residents house if the resident has a blue badge.
8. An advisory parking bay is exactly that: advisory only. Neither the Council nor the police can take enforcement action against a person parking in the bay. An advisory parking bay works with the support of neighbours who agree not to park there.
9. The Council will consider the following points when a resident applies for an advisory parking bay:
• The suitability of the location.
• The resident is happy to pay for installation.
• The resident understands the bay is not enforceable.
• The resident’s neighbours support installation of the parking bay.
10. The Council reserves the rights to reject installation of an advisory parking bay or remove and advisory parking bay if the bay will cause or has caused undue tensions in the neighbourhood.

Background

11. Miss X has a blue badge which allows her to park in disabled parking spots. Miss X applied for an advisory disabled parking bay outside her house in 2007. The Council consulted with neighbours who raised no objections to the parking bay. The Council granted her application and installed the bay.
12. Miss X says she experienced no issues with being able to access her parking bay until 2018.
13. The Council has shown complaints in 2016 and 2018 about cones being used to reserve parking on Miss X’s street. The Council sent letters to all residents with no further complaints received.
14. Miss X says her neighbour’s partner repeatedly parked in the advisory disabled parking bay from 2018. Miss X says she complained to the police often about this issue before complaining to the Council.

What Happened

15. In December 2018, one of Miss X’s neighbours, Neighbour A, complained Miss X was mis-using the advisory parking bay. Neighbour A said Miss X got her daughter to park in the spot while she used her car. Neighbour A also said Miss X was confrontational to other people who tried to use the parking bay.
16. The Council sent a letter to Miss X in January 2019 advising it could remove the parking bay if it caused undue tension in the neighbourhood.
17. Neighbour A complained to the Council again in March 2019 about Miss X and the parking bay.
18. The Council sent a further letter to Miss X on 3 April 2019 advising it would be removing the bay in the week starting 15 April 2019. The Council said this was because there was continuing tension in the neighbourhood caused by the parking bay.
19. Miss X and a different neighbour, Neighbour B, wrote to the Council to support the parking bay remaining. Miss X provided letters from a care nurse specialist and a GP to support that her medical condition warranted a parking spot outside her house.
20. The Council decided the parking should remain in place and advised Neighbour A. Neighbour A disputed this decision.
21. The Council liaised with the police over the parking bay and the incidents noted between Miss X and Neighbour A in July 2019. The Council decided to complete a joint meeting between Miss X, Neighbour A, the police and the Council. Miss X and Neighbour A would not meet at the same time, so the Council arranged two separate meetings for 16 August 2019.
22. A council officer and police officers met with Neighbour A followed by Miss X on 16 August 2019. The Council decided to remove the parking bay. Miss X complained the Council officer decided to remove the bay before meeting with her on 16 August 2019.
23. The Council wrote to Miss X on 3 September 2019 to confirm its decision to remove the parking bay. The Council said:
• Miss X could still park on the street without using the parking bay. On 16 August 2019 there was space on the street for six cars to park.
• Miss X could park on nearby double-yellow lines using her blue badge for up to three hours.
• There was a free car park a short walk from Miss X’s house.
• Miss X had been mis-using the space by reserving the spot for her use only.
• The parking bay was a cause of dispute in the neighbourhood.
24. Miss X complained about the decision. The Council passed her complaint to its legal department who advised the existence of the bay was at the Council’s discretion. The Council confirmed it would remove the bay but did not arrange to remove the parking bay in 2019.
25. The Council wrote to Miss X on 8 June 2020 to advise it would be removing the parking bay on 15 June 2020. Neighbour B and Miss X complained to the Council about the removal of the bay.
26. The Council remove the parking bay on 15 June 2020.
27. Miss X complained to the Council on 24 June 2020 about the removal of the parking bay. The Council accepted Miss X’s complaint and promised a response by 27 July 2020.
28. The Council provided its Stage 1 response on 20 July 2020. The Council said:
• Advisory parking bays are to encourage courteous behaviour. These parking bays only work with support from neighbours.
• Following the meetings in August 2019, the Council officer and police officers decided the parking bay was causing upset on the street. It was therefore suitable to remove the parking bay.
29. Miss X appealed the Stage 1 response from the Council. The Council promised a response within 20 working days on 12 August 2020.
30. Miss X complained the Council did not respond within the agreed on time on 5 September 2020. The Council apologised and promised a response by 18 September 2020.
31. The Council sent its Stage 2 response on 10 September 2020. The Council said:
• It had the right to remove an advisory disabled bay marking if this caused problems or undue tension in a neighbourhood. The parking bay outside Miss X’s property was causing a dispute.
• The parking bay is only advisory and neither the Council nor police could enforce it. The parking bay relies on co-operation between neighbours. Since Miss X’s neighbours had been parking in the bay when it existed this did not meet its intended purpose.
• It had decided not to reinstate the parking bay.
32. Miss X disputed the Council’s Stage 2 response and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

33. Miss X complained the Council removed her advisory parking bay because of a dispute between her and her neighbour.
34. The Council should have considered both Neighbour A’s complaint about the parking bay and Miss X’s submissions for retention of the parking bay before deciding what action to take. The Council must consider an advisory parking bay is not enforceable and lack of cooperation in the neighbourhood would result in failure of the parking bay.
35. The Council has provided evidence it considered Neighbour A’s complaints about the parking bay at the start of 2019. Based on the complaints and evidence Neighbour A sent, the Council decided to remove the parking bay. When Miss X provided medical evidence of her need for the parking bay, the Council reversed its decision. The Council says it gave opportunity for the tension between Miss X and Neighbour A to improve before removing the parking bay.
36. The Council has recognised the tension caused by the parking bay but gave Miss X and Neighbour A an opportunity to resolve this tension. Miss X and her neighbour could not resolve the issues caused by the parking bay. I do not find fault with the Council reversing its earlier decision to remove the bay in an attempt to see if the tensions could be resolved first.
37. When the issues between Miss X and Neighbour A did not resolve, the Council decided to hold a joint meeting. I consider this is a suitable method of listening to both Miss X and Neighbour A. While Miss X says the Council decided to remove the bay before meeting with her, there is no evidence to support this.
38. The Council decided to remove the parking bay after speaking to both Miss X and Neighbour A. The Council does not dispute that Miss X could benefit from the advisory parking bay. But removal of the parking bay does not remove Miss X’s ability to park near her house.
39. The Council decided to remove the parking bay as this caused tensions between Miss X and her neighbour. An advisory parking bay cannot be successful if a resident’s neighbours do not support it. Since Neighbour A did not support Miss X’s use of the parking bay, the parking bay was redundant in its purpose. Neither the Council nor the Police have enforcement rights over the bay.
40. The tension caused by this parking bay resulted in many complaints to both the Council and the Police. This is clear evidence the parking bay caused tensions in the neighbourhood. The Council acted in line with its policy and considered the circumstances in deciding to remove the parking bay. I do not find fault with the actions of the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation as there was no fault in the Council’s decision to remove the advisory disabled parking bay outside her house.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman