Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed installing a disabled parking bay near her property. The Council has already admitted to delays but stated they occurred because work stopped during the COVID-19 pandemic, causing a significant backlog. Under these circumstances, we do not find fault. The Council’s failure to explain on its website that it can exercise discretion when determining disabled parking bay applications is fault. It has agreed to amend its website to make this clear.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council delayed installing a disabled parking bay near her property.
2. As a result, Ms X says she often has to park a considerable distance from her property. Ms X states both her own and her child’s health has been negatively affected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We cannot question whether an organisation’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)
5. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
6. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
7. 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

8. I spoke to Ms X and considered her view of her complaint.
9. I considered the Council’s complaints responses.
10. I wrote to Ms X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council’s policy on disabled parking bays

11. The Council website explains to residents that in order to apply for a disabled parking bay marked outside or near their home, they must, amongst other things, have a valid blue badge and receive the higher rate of the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA).
12. Once a resident has a disabled resident bay assigned to their property, they can apply for a disabled resident parking permit.

Blue badges, non-visible disabilities and DLA

13. The Department for Transport (DfT) has issued guidance to councils for providing blue badges. The blue badge scheme entitles drivers or passengers with mobility problems to park nearer to their destination.
14. When deciding if someone is eligible for a blue badge, councils must consider the difficulties experienced by people with non-visible disabilities, such as autism. Previously, councils only had to consider an applicant’s physical ability to walk.
15. As a result, it is possible for someone to be awarded a blue badge whilst only receiving the lower rate of mobility for DLA.

What happened

16. In July and October 2020, Ms X applied for a disabled parking bay permit. This was because her daughter, D, who was then of pre-school age, has autism and is a partial wheelchair user. At that time, D did not receive the higher mobility rate of DLA.
17. The Council refused Ms X’s application both times. The decision letter in relation to the October application stated “In line with current Council policy the reason for refusal is due to the fact that the applicant does not receive the higher or enhanced rate [of DLA]”.
18. Later in October Ms X applied again, stating D was now receiving the higher mobility rate. On the same day, the Council approved Ms X’s application for a disabled parking bay to be installed close to her property. Ms X says it told her the work would take six months to complete.
19. In April 2021, Ms X contacted the Council because it had not started the work and she had heard nothing further. The Council told me that officers had tried to call Ms X a number of times to discuss the placement of the parking bay, but Ms X had changed her number and had not informed the Council. The Council also said it visited Ms X three times, in March, April and June 2021, but Ms X was not in. Ms X told me during my investigation that she had not changed her number and she had no record of any missed calls from the Council. She also disputed the Council’s claim that it visited her home.
20. In June, the Council marked the bay out. It told Ms X she could use it in the meantime, whilst it progressed the legalities. Ms X says a Council officer told her it would take six weeks to complete the required Traffic Management Order. Until that time, it could not be enforced as a valid disabled parking bay.
21. Ms X heard nothing further and complained to the Council. The Council told her it would take a further six months to complete the work.
22. Ms X escalated her complaint. In its response in August 2021, the Council partially upheld Ms X’s complaint. It said there had been issues with the location of the disabled parking bay and where it could be installed. It also said COVID-19 had caused delays. The Council said it would update Ms X with timescales at the beginning of September.
23. In September, the Council updated Ms X. It re-iterated the impact of COVID-19 on works saying implementation of disabled parking bays was on hold due to government guidance. This had resulted in a backlog. The Council went on to say that although it had “returned to a form of normal working practices, the Highways and Sustainable Transport team is experiencing significant operational challenges following the [reallocation] of resources towards key priorities and urgent tasks facing the borough. This is regrettably affecting the timescales for the delivery of works. However, measures have recently been put in place for additional support to process all outstanding applications that were inevitably delayed due to COVID-19 pandemic.”
24. The Council told Ms X it would be an additional six months before the disabled parking bay would be installed. It apologised for these delays.
25. Ms X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
26. During my investigation, the Council told me that by the time it restarted work in February 2021, it had over 700 applications to process with a backlog of around 500. It explained it had now outsourced the work to improve timescales. It said the legal process for Ms X’s application started at the end of January 2022. If the Council did not receive any objections to the installation of the parking bay, the Traffic Management Order required to install it would likely be approved at the end of March 2022 and the bay would become legal soon afterwards
27. Ms X received her permit at the end of April. The bay will be completed in the first half of May.

My findings

Ms X’s application for a disabled parking bay

28. The Council does not deny there were delays in installing the disabled parking bay outside Ms X’s property. These undoubtedly caused Ms X significant frustration. It explained the delays were because work stopped between March 2020 and February 2021 because of COVID-19 and officers being transferred to other front line services, resulting in a backlog.
29. The bay was approved at the end of March 2022 and will be installed in May. The normal timescales are six months to complete the process. This means installation was delayed by around a year from the date Ms X’s application was approved in October 2020. Under normal circumstances, this would be fault. However, taking into account the backlog caused by COVID-19 which resulted in delays, and the fact the Council took some steps to alleviate the situation when it marked the bay out, I do not find fault in this particular instance.
30. When work resumed, there are differing views over whether the Council called Ms X or visited her home. Further investigation to determine the facts would not be proportionate and would not change the outcome of this investigation or its findings. What is known is that the Council marked the bay out in June 2021.
31. Ms X says the officer told her the legalities would be completed in six weeks’ time, when in reality the process took around a further ten months. It is not possible for me to know what actually was said because I was not there. Therefore, I will not investigate this further.

Council’s policy on applying for a disabled parking bay

32. The Council’s policy states applicants must have a blue badge and be in receipt of the higher mobility rate of DLA to be eligible for a disabled parking permit and bay.
33. However, there are occasions, usually when someone has a non-visible disability, such as autism, when they might qualify for a blue badge but only be eligible for the lower mobility rate of DLA.
34. When I asked the Council how it ensured its policy did not discriminate against such applicants, it stated it exercises discretion and decides each application on a case-by-case basis. It provided an example of when it had done this.
35. However, its letter to Ms X, which simply stated she was not eligible for a disabled parking bay because D did not receive the higher mobility rate of DLA does not indicate the Council did so in Ms X’s case. This is fault.
36. Where there has been fault, we will consider whether it caused any significant injustice to the person complaining. In this case, Ms X applied again three months later and her application was accepted. However, because the Council stopped work because of COVID-19, causing delays, it is unlikely this delay at the start of the process had any significant effect on the timescales of Ms X’s application.
37. Because the Council does not make it clear on its website that it will consider applications on a case-by-case basis, it is more than likely this will stop prospective applicants from applying because they believe they will be automatically refused because they do not meet the stated requirements. This is fault.
38. The Council has agreed to amend its policy and information on its website to make clear it will consider all applications from blue badge holders on a case by basis when the applicant is in receipt of the lower mobility rate component of DLA.

Back to top

Agreed actions

39. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• amend its website to make it clear it will consider all applications from blue badge holders on a case-by-case basis when the applicant is in receipt of the lower mobility rate component of DLA; and
• ensure the relevant staff are aware that applications where the applicant has a blue badge but does not receive the higher mobility rate for DLA should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Back to top

Final decision

40. The Council was at fault for not making clear it has discretion when considering applications for disabled parking bays. It has agreed to my recommendations to remedy this and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman