Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a disabled parking bay at a neighbouring address to the complainant’s. There is insufficient evidence of injustice arising from any fault by the council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council approving a disabled parking bay for a neighbour’s home without taking her own needs into consideration.

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 impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained
• (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says the Council approved a disabled bay for her neighbours which she is concerned will cause restrictions to her own access. The bay extends beyond the frontage of the neighbour’s home but does not cover the dropped kerb which allows her access to her property. She complained to the Council about it putting her neighbour’s disabled needs before her own.
6. The Council is not the highway authority in this case and the bay was provided to meet the County Council highways authority standards. The latter body has no concerns about the location. We would expect the Council to decide on an application for a parking bay within a reasonable time and it did so. There is no reason to believe that the bay will restrict Miss X’s access because the dropped kerb covers her drive entrance and there is sufficient space for manoeuvring. I have considered images of the location and there is no reason to believe it is unreasonably restrictive.
7. The Council told Miss X that she could apply for a discretionary H-bar parking line in front of her driveway if she remains concerned, but she rejected this as it would involve expenditure which she believes she should not incur.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter. There is no evidence here to suggest the creation of the disabled bay has caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a disabled parking bay at a neighbouring address to the complainant’s. There is insufficient evidence of injustice arising from any fault by the council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman