Summary: Miss C complains the Council wrongly refused her request for a disabled parking bay at her sister’s property. Miss C says this means her sister’s carers cannot park near her home and she will often not leave as she cannot see the car or will behave unpredictably. We have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology, symbolic payment, further review and staff guidance provides a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss C, complains the Council has wrongly refused her request for a disabled parking bay at her sister’s property. Miss C says the bay is to allow her sister’s regular carers to park outside the property but the Council insists a car needs to be registered at the property address. Miss C says the Council has not properly considered her sister’s particular needs and whether it should make an exception to its policy.
2. Miss C says because of the Council’s fault, her sister’s carers cannot park near her home and she will often not leave as she cannot see the car or will behave unpredictably.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

6. I read the papers provided by Miss C and discussed the complaint with her. I have considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Miss C after removing third party details. I have explained my draft decision to Miss C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council’s policy

7. The Council has provided a copy of its Disabled Parking Bays Process Guidance dated July 2015. This sets out the following policy principles:

• any available off street parking will be assessed as an alternative to a disabled parking bay
• if the above is not a viable option and the criteria are met a disabled parking bay will be progressed
• if there is adequate off street parking and there are no Social Care notes detailing an assessment the application will be declined
• all applicants including those assessed by Social Care will qualify using the same criteria including having a V5C (vehicle registration document) or mobility lease registered at the address and a current Blue Badge
• only a Social Care assessment can determine if an applicant not meeting the above criteria can qualify for a Disabled Parking Bay
• alternative Social Care provision may be offered to customers who do not have a V5C or mobility lease registered at the address and a current Blue Badge
• Disabled Parking Bays are for the resident not for visiting carers or relatives
• No new bays will be marked or maintained on land not owned by the Council

8. The Council’s policy further states it will refer to the possibility of an Adult Social Care (ASC) assessment in letters declining an application for a disabled parking bay. The policy confirms that if a customer does not meet the criteria for a disabled parking bay and the assessment is that there are exceptional circumstances that require a bay, the Social Care assessment will be accepted and the bay will be progressed (ASC need to provide a written statement as to why the request should proceed).

Key events

9. Miss C complained to the Council at the beginning of March about the Council’s application of its policy for disabled parking bays. Miss C explained she had spoken to the Council’s highways department that day and been told there were two requirements for a disabled bay. Firstly, the disabled person must be a blue badge holder and Miss C confirmed this requirement was met. Secondly, a car using the bay had to be registered at the property. Miss C had explained this was not possible and the space was needed for her sister’s carers. Miss C explained the impact this was having on her sister.
10. The Council provided a response in mid-March. This stated the criteria for a parking bay was:

• a current valid Blue Badge holder resided at the address
• a vehicle was registered to the address
• there was no suitable off street parking

11. The Council also stated its policy provided that:

• alternative Social Care provision may be offered to customers who do not have a V5C (car registration document) or mobility lease registered at the address and a current Blue Badge
• Disabled Parking Bays were for the resident, not for visiting carers or relatives.

12. The Council suggested to Miss C there may be other options available for residents that did not qualify for a parking bay if they had significant difficulties with their mobility and daily routines which may benefit from a Social Care assessment and provided the contact details. The Council stated the policy sought to balance the needs of disabled residents with other residents in areas where there were limited parking spaces and any changes to it might result in the installation of parking bays that were only used once or twice a week and potentially result in neighbourhood disputes about parking. Finally, the Council explained eligibility for a parking bay did not mean one would be installed as this was subject to the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process including local consultation and the site being suitable in highway terms and on land controlled by the Council.
13. Miss C responded the same day to say she remained unhappy with the situation and asked for advice on next steps. The Council confirmed disabled parking bays were for the resident not for visiting carers or relatives and advised Miss C of her right to complain to the Ombudsman.
14. Miss C further complained and noted the bay was to meet the resident’s needs and her social worker had asked for the author of the Council’s response to make contact.
15. The Council provided a final response at the end of March which reiterated the requirements of its policy and repeated some of the information previously provided. This also stated the Council was unable to amend its policy for one resident within its area and would not correspond further on the same issue. The Council reminded Miss C of her right to complain to the Ombudsman.
16. In its reply to the Ombudsman, the Council confirmed there had not been a formal application to Social Care for a disabled parking bay or a request for an ASC assessment. The Council has also confirmed it does not consider the laybys near Miss C’s sister’s property to form part of the highway and the land is registered to a housing association.

My consideration

17. A council should not adopt a blanket approach or policy that prevents it from considering the circumstances of a particular case. We may find fault in the actions of councils that ‘fetter their discretion’ in this way.
18. The Council’s policy clearly confirms that if a resident does not meet the criteria for a disabled parking bay a Social Care assessment may find there are exceptional circumstances that require a bay. The Council did not provide a clear explanation of this to Miss C.

19. The Council has not been able to locate the record for Miss C’s initial contact which she says was with its highways department. The Council suggests this may have been with its contact centre which has more limited information available. The Council has confirmed it proposes to improve the information provided to customers who do not meet the relevant criteria about next steps. The Ombudsman would welcome this action.
20. I am satisfied, on balance, that Miss C was not properly advised about how to progress an application as an exceptional circumstance as she makes no reference to this in her subsequent complaint and there is no such clear explanation provided during the Council’s complaint correspondence.
21. Instead, the Council repeatedly told Miss C the application did not meet its criteria and only referred to ‘alternative Social Care provision’ or ‘other options’ being available for residents that did not qualify for a parking bay through a Social Care assessment. The Council failed to advise Miss C that such an assessment may find there were exceptional circumstances that required a disabled parking bay. This is fault. This fault is compounded by the statement in the Council’s final complaint response that it could not amend its policy for one resident which suggested it was not properly applying the exceptional circumstances element of its policy and fettering its discretion.
22. It is too speculative to say if an application from Miss C would have been successful and a parking bay implemented as this would depend on a number of factors including the outcome of a Social Care assessment, identifying a suitable site and the TRO process. However, I am satisfied Miss C has been put to avoidable frustration and suffered uncertainty about the possibility of a disabled parking bay as a result of the Council’s fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

23. The Council will take following action within six weeks of my final decision to provide a suitable remedy to Miss C:
1. write to apologise for not providing an adequate explanation of its Disabled Parking Bay policy;
2. make a symbolic payment of £150 to recognise her frustration and uncertainty;
3. arrange for a Social Care assessment to decide if there are exceptional circumstances that require a disabled parking bay;
4. if the Social Care assessment finds there are exceptional circumstances that require a disabled parking bay the Council should progress an application in line with its policy and relevant timescales;
5. it should also consider whether to make an exception to the other requirements of its policy as necessary including the bay not being for carers and any bay being on Council controlled land (subject to the landowner’s agreement); and
6. provide a reminder to all staff who may receive or deal with a request about disabled parking bays of the Council’s policy with specific reference to how it considers exceptional circumstances to ensure it is providing a full explanation and not fettering its discretion.
24. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation as I have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed actions above provide a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman