Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to install additional space parking opposite his house because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s removal of several disabled car parking spaces from a local car park because the issue does not cause Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains:
• The Council has refused to install additional parking/space for turning opposite his house
• The Council removed disabled parking bays from a local car park without consulting residents. Mr X believes this breaches the Equality Act 2010.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Parking near Mr X’s home

6. Mr X lives on a narrow section of road opposite a turning area and section of grass, both of which residents use to park their cars. Mr X says there is not enough space for cars to park or for vehicles to turn; he therefore believes the Council should extend the turning area to provide additional car parking.
7. The Council has declined to take Mr X’s suggestion further due to the costs involved. Mr X says it has wrongly estimated the cost and has a quote from a contractor which suggests it would cost a lot less than the Council says. But the Council is under no obligation to spend public money to improve the parking situation on Mr X’s road, whatever the cost. We could not therefore achieve the outcome Mr X wants, which is for it to provide the additional parking space he wants.

Disabled car parking spaces

8. The Council confirms it has converted several disabled car parking spaces in a local car park for use by taxis. Mr X believes this is a breach of the Equality Act 2010 but it is not our role to decide if it is. Only the courts can decide if the Council has broken the law.
9. While the Council has removed several disabled spaces from the car park it has installed an equivalent number of new disabled parking spaces on the road nearby. It says the new location is more convenient for some members of the public and given the proximity of the new spaces to the car park, which is less than 2 minutes drive by car or a four-minute walk, we cannot say the decision causes Mr X significant injustice. We also cannot say the Council must reinstate the original disabled parking bays as he would like.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to install an additional area for cars to park opposite Mr X’s home and its decision to move several disabled car parking spaces does not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman