Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to take appropriate action when he complained that his neighbour does not meet the criteria for a disabled parking bay the Council provided. There was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to take appropriate action when he complained that his neighbour had a disabled parking bay, but he does not appear to meet the Council’s criteria for one. He asked the Council to review his neighbour’s eligibility for the disabled parking bay taking into account its policy and all the evidence he presented. He explained the presence of the disabled parking bay is causing difficulties between residents.

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 spoke to Mr X and considered the complaint he made. I asked the Council for information and consider its response to the complaint.
5. The majority of the Council’s response to my enquiries was shared with Mr X, as our practice is to investigate transparently. However, an element of the response contained third party information which I redacted.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Some years ago, the Council marked out a disabled parking bay on Mr X’s road following an application by a neighbour. Disabled parking bays are advisory. They can be used the applicant or by other disabled people. As they are advisory this also means a council cannot prevent other motorists parking in them.
8. In 2020 Mr X contacted the Council and questioned his neighbour’s eligibility for the bay. The parking bay was at the front of his property. He stated to the rear, his neighbour had a garage and a parking space in front of it. He set out some of his observations about his neighbour’s mobility and stated he could see no reason why his neighbour was not able to use the garage or parking space he had.
9. Mr X explained parking is difficult along the street and he stated the issue had led to some ill-feeling between some residents. He asked the Council to reconsider the justification for the disabled bay.
10. In email responses to Mr X an officer told him that the Council would generally consider access to a garage as being a reasonable facility for off street parking. However, he stated that the Council reviewed the bay the year before and the qualifying criteria were met at that time. The officer stated the Council had no way to confirm if a property has a garage or off-street parking elsewhere other than to ask the applicant, which would have been part of the original application process. The officer stated the Council no longer held all the correspondence from the original application.
11. Mr X was dissatisfied and raised a complaint. He set out his concerns and stated that he did not know what information was provided with the original application but he confirmed his neighbour had both a garage and off-street parking so he asked the Council to review the need for the bay.
12. The Council’s response to the complaint stated, because the decision was made some years ago, the relevant officers could not be interviewed. However, the records that existed indicated the application was considered through the normal process and relevant factors that Mr X mentioned in his complaint were considered. The Council stated that it generally would not look to remove a disabled parking bay because there was a cost to this.
13. The Council was able to provide us with internal emails from 2020 in which officers discussed the issues Mr X raised and ran through what their files showed. It was also able to share a copy of the original application form for the parking bay showing what the applicant stated about their circumstances. While we have been able to see these documents, the contents must remain confidential as they relate to a third party.
14. In response to our enquiries on Mr X’s complaint the Council confirmed its procedures. The Council explained that it does carry out checks when it receives an application. These include an assertion from an applicant that they do not have off-street parking. If an applicant clearly has off-street parking the Council will refuse an application. If there is doubt, they seek more information from the applicant or do a site visit.
15. If another party challenges the validity of a parking bay, the Council checks the same qualifying criteria that it would for a new application. If, after doing so it receives no response or finds that someone does not meet the criteria it will list the bay as redundant and for removal.
16. The Council told us that it does not have a policy to leave redundant disabled bays in place. Referring to its comments in response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council told us it would not pro-actively engage in bay removal where there may still be a need as there is a cost attached to it, but it would remove bays when appropriate.

Was there fault by the Council

17. Mr X raises a concern that the eligibility criteria for a bay is not met. The relevant criteria says the Council will provide a disabled bay to an applicant who has “no reasonable facility for off street parking”.
18. The Council told Mr X that it would generally reject an application for a bay if the applicant has a garage or parking space off road. However, it would consider any circumstances the applicant brought forward about this to determine if the use of a garage or off-road parking space was “reasonable”.
19. Responding to a complaint of this nature can present difficulties. This is because the Council cannot fully explain its position or the facts without revealing information which is personal to a third party. This is something the Council cannot do by law. The Ombudsman can see information that must otherwise remain confidential. We have seen records that the Council cannot divulge in this case.
20. The evidence satisfies me that Mr X’s queries and his complaint to the Council do not provide the Council with any more information than it was aware of when it reached its original decision to grant the disabled bay some years earlier. The Council had reviewed the situation in 2019 and it considered the points Mr X raised in 2020 but decided it was not appropriate to investigate the matter further or remove the parking bay concerned. This was a decision the Council reached properly and one it was entitled to reach.
21. The Council confirmed that it would take action, where appropriate, to remove parking bays if they found the applicant did not meet the relevant criteria.
22. As there has been no fault by the Council I have completed my investigation and closed my file.

Back to top

Final decision

23. There was no fault buy the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman