Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s delays with her disabled parking bay applications. We found the Council at fault for poor communication, unclear information about expected timeframes for the process and poor complaint handling. This caused Miss X significant frustration and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to recognise her injustice. It also agreed to review its website and make changes to ensure clearer information and transparency.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council's handling of, and excessive delays with, her disabled parking bay applications for her current and previous address. She raised concerns about the Council's poor communication and how it administratively handled her formal complaint. The Council's actions caused her significant distress and frustration. She and her child are disabled. She said the prolonged wait for the bays to ease access to parking outside their home significantly impacted on their daily lives with severe inconvenience and hardship.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. Miss X complained about excessive delays (around 17 months) to install a disabled parking bay at her previous address between 2022 and 2023. Miss X included past events with this first application in her complaint to us in October 2025. As outlined in Paragraph 3, this part of her complaint is late. We expect complainants to come to us within 12 months of being aware of an issue.
6. The Council sent a Stage 1 complaint response in spring 2023. She did not escalate this at the time.
7. Miss X provided evidence of several issues she was going through during this period. I appreciate her view this shows mitigating circumstances. But on balance, I do not consider these good enough reasons to have not escalated her complaint sooner to us about this earlier period. I am not exercising discretion to consider the events from over two years ago. My investigation focuses on her 2024 application for her current address.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered her views and information she provided. I considered the Council’s responses to Miss X’s complaint, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Administrative background

Information on the Council’s website about disabled parking bay applications

10. It says: “The process to add a disabled parking bay can take up to a year. It may take longer if we receive an objection during the consultation stage. We will keep you updated if this happens”.

Principles of Good Administrative Practice (updated January 2025)

11. We issued guidance relating to Principles of Good Administrative Practice. This outlines our expectations and standards behind good administrative practice for councils. One principle is “being open and accountable”. This includes being clear about policies and procedures and ensuring information, and any advice provided, is clear, accurate and complete. This includes maintaining transparency in light of complex service delivery arrangements.

The Council’s complaints policy – staff complaints

12. It states “it is important to avoid any situation where an officer responds to a complaint made against themselves. Such instances undermine the complainant’s confidence in the complaint’s procedure. Instead, line managers should take charge of investigating and addressing any staff complaints”.

What happened – summary of key relevant events I am considering

13. Miss X and her child have disabilities, including mobility issues and medical needs.
14. In May 2024, Miss X submitted a disabled parking bay application. In June 2024, the Council sent an acknowledgement. In mid-December 2024, Officer 1 from the Highways team notified Miss X they approved her application. They gave expected timescales with the next stages.
15. In January 2025, Miss X emailed the Council with a query. In June 2025, Officer 1 responded. They said it intended to do statutory consultations in July.
16. In July 2025, Miss X formally complained about the delays and communication by Officer 1. She said the Council’s website said the process should take 12 months. It missed the deadline without clear explanations. She explained the severe impact and emotional distress it was having on her and her child.
17. At the start of August 2025, Officer 1 updated her on the completed stages of her application. They expected to start the consultations at the end of the month.
18. A week later, Officer 1 sent a Stage 1 complaint response. They aimed to install the bay by December 2025, within 12 months of its December 2024 approval. It was working to support her and other applicants in this batch of applications.
19. In September 2025, the Council responded at Stage 2. It did not uphold her complaint. It apologised for its late complaint responses. It was satisfied it was working within the timeframes given to her in line with its policy; the 12 months started from when it internally reviewed an application, not upon submission. It did not individually assess applications but reviewed them in batches, when they received a certain number. It said the consultation stage should start later that month. It offered £25 for her time and trouble in pursuing her complaint.
20. In October 2025, Miss X complained to us. The next month, the Council installed the bay at Miss X’s current address.

Analysis

12-month timeframe and communication

21. The Council’s website says it can take up to a year to install a disabled parking bay. This wording is vague. Miss X applied in May 2024 and so thought it should have been done by May 2025. This is a reasonable assumption based on everyday interpretation. But the Council says the 12 months starts from when it approves the application. If this is the Council’s position, then it should make this plainly clear on its website and in the initial application stages. Otherwise, it is misleading and is fault with poor communication.
22. In any event, it took the Council 5 weeks to acknowledge Miss X’s application and then a further 5 months to approve it. This is already a significant amount of time for the approval stage. The Council seems to say this was due to the batching of applications. Councils may do this to save money and time. This is an operational decision, and the Council is entitled to do this. However, again, the Council should make this clear at the start of an application and on its website. It should ensure transparency and explain how batching may affect overall timeframes, including for the approval stage (e.g. if there are set time periods or what numbers it accepts each year). This is further fault with poor communication.
23. There are many stages in the process, which are subject to legal requirements. These can be lengthy and unavoidable, with issues cropping up in between. I see the Council gave different dates for expected statutory consultations. While frustrating, I recognise proposed timeframes can move and are likely to be outside the Council’s control. But it could have acknowledged the dates being pushed back and explained it to Miss X at the times it happened. I also consider this poor communication, as well as a lack of timely updates (such as taking 5 months to respond to a query).
24. Overall, I do not consider the Council acted in line with principles of good administrative practice (Paragraph 11). These faults caused Miss X significant frustration and distress about how the Council was handling her application. She also had uncertainty about whether it was acting in line with its policies as they were unclear and lacked clarity. I also consider this is likely to affect others like Miss X who, by the nature of potentially needing a disabled bay, are vulnerable. I recommend the Council should better manage its communication to demonstrate fair accountability in how it operates this process.

Complaint handling

25. The Council accepted fault with its delayed complaint responses (1 day late for Stage 1, two weeks late for Stage 2). I note the Stage 1 response was hard to follow as it repeated itself several times, made unclear statements and said it made “the following recommendations with refreshing its disabled bay application policy and guidance to ensure learning”. But it did not list any recommendations. This is fault, causing unnecessary frustration and confusion to Miss X.
26. Miss X raised concerns about Officer 1’s actions but the same officer also answered her complaint. This is against the Council’s own policy at Paragraph 12. The Council also did not acknowledge her valid concern about this when she escalated her complaint. This is fault, causing Miss X avoidable frustration.
27. Miss X accepted the Council’s £25 remedy for her time and trouble. But I do not consider this is in line with our guidance on remedies. I recommend an additional amount to further reflect Miss X’s overall injustice with the faults identified, including other aspects of poor complaint handling.

Back to top

Agreed Action

28. I recommend the Council carry out the following actions:
29. Within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Miss X in writing (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology) for the injustice caused by the faults identified and pay Miss X an additional symbolic payment of £200 to recognise this.
30. Within three months of the final decision:
• The Council should review and amend its website and application page with clear information about the disabled parking bay application process and its stages. It should make clear its position about expected timescales, particularly when it considers the 12-month timeframe begins. It should include information about how it batches applications and how this might impact on overall timeframes. It should also review at what points it may send periodic updates to applicants during the process.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to the recommendations to remedy the injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman