Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of Mrs Y that the Council did not properly consider her application for a Disabled Resident Parking Permit. Mrs X also complained the Council wrongly issued a Penalty Charge Notice. She says the Council’s actions caused avoidable stress and confusion. She also says her trust in the Council has been damaged. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and to reconsider Mrs Y’s permit application.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained on behalf of Mrs Y that the Council did not properly consider her application for a Disabled Resident Parking Permit. Mrs X also complained the Council wrongly issued a Penalty Charge Notice. She says the Council’s actions caused avoidable stress and confusion. She also says her trust in the Council has been damaged. Mrs X would like the Council to apologise and reinstate the Disabled Resident Parking Permit.

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. 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

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s parking policy

6. The Council’s parking policy sets out the Council’s policies on parking in the borough. This includes its management of controlled parking zones (CPZ). The policy states that CPZs are designed to protect residents and businesses from high demand for parking. In CPZs, parking on the street is restricted during the operating hours of the zone. During the operating hours, parking may only take place in designated areas and with a valid payment or permit.
7. Under the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004, the Council may issue Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) for parking contraventions.

Disabled Resident Parking Permits

8. Residents with Council-issued Blue Badges can apply for a Disabled Resident Parking Permit. The permit allows the holder to park in any resident bay, in any CPZ throughout the borough.
9. To be eligible for a Disabled Resident Parking Permit, the Council says the applicant must:
• Be a resident of the Council’s area
• Have a Council-issued Blue Badge
• Have a vehicle registered to the Council-issued Blue Badge holder’s address
10. The Council’s policy states only one vehicle can be registered for a Disabled Resident Parking Permit per Blue Badge.

Principles of good administrative practice

11. In 2018 the Ombudsman published a guidance document (updated in January 2025), setting out the standards we expect from bodies in jurisdiction “Principles of Good Administrative Practice”. This includes:
• Stating the criteria for decision making and giving reasons for decisions
• Keeping proper and appropriate records
• Explaining clearly the rationale for decisions and recording them

Background

12. Mrs Y lives in the Council’s area. She is disabled and has a Council-issued Blue Badge. Mrs Y has a car as part of the Motability Scheme.
13. Mrs Y’s relative, Mrs X has Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for Mrs Y’s financial affairs. This allows Mrs X to make decisions regarding financial affairs for Mrs Y when she is unable to do so herself.
14. Mrs Y receives support from another of her relatives, Ms Z. Ms Z is Mrs Y’s carer and driver.

What happened

15. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
16. On 7 October 2025, the Council received an application for a Disabled Resident Parking Permit for Mrs Y. The Council received supporting evidence with the application, including a copy of Mrs Y’s Council-issued Blue Badge and confirmation that Mrs Y was the registered keeper of her vehicle.
17. On 9 October 2025, Mrs Y received an email from the Council stating her Disabled Resident Parking Permit was active. The email confirmation stated the permit was registered to Mrs Y’s vehicle.
18. On 10 October 2025, the Council issued a PCN regarding a parking contravention involving Mrs Y’s vehicle.
19. On the same day, Mrs X complained to the Council. She said the Council had issued a PCN despite Mrs Y having an active Disabled Resident Parking Permit. Mrs X said when she called to query the PCN, one Council staff member told her the permit was not active whilst another said they could see it. Mrs X said the Council’s inconsistency had caused unnecessary distress. Mrs X said that issuing a PCN when a valid permit was in place potentially amounted to maladministration. She asked the Council to cancel the PCN and confirm the Disabled Resident Parking Permit was active.
20. The Council provided its complaint response on 17 October 2025. It said the information provided in support of Mrs Y’s permit application showed two addresses. Mrs X replied on the same day. She said Mrs Y lived between both addresses because of her disability and complex needs. She said some days, Mrs Y stayed with her because she cannot manage on her own, and other days, she stayed at her own property. Mrs X said Mrs Y’s official correspondence is registered at both addresses.
21. On 20 October 2025, Ms Z emailed the Council. She said it had rejected an approved permit without proper investigation and that Mrs Y had dual residency because of her disability and complex needs.
22. On 24 October 2025, the Council provided a further response to Ms Z. It confirmed receipt of the documents provided in support of the permit application as well as Ms Z’s emails and telephone calls. The Council said it was initially unable to engage with Ms Z regarding the PCN and permit application because she was not the vehicle’s registered keeper and did not hold LPA for Mrs Y. The Council provided the eligibility criteria for the Disabled Resident Parking Permit and said the vehicle must be registered with the DVLA at the address stated in the application.
23. The Council said it had not received satisfactory evidence to show Mrs Y resided at the address registered as that of the named driver. It also said it could not accept the documents provided as proof of Mrs Y’s address. The Council said for this reason, the permit application did not meet the requirement of the vehicle being registered at the address of the Blue Badge holder.
24. Regarding the issuance of the PCN, the Council apologised and said it had issued the penalty incorrectly due to a system error. The Council confirmed it had cancelled the PCN. The Council apologised for sending the email which stated the permit was active; it said the email should not have been generated because the permit should not have been approved.
25. Ms Z replied on the same day. She said the Council’s response was inaccurate and dismissive and did not address the explanation that Mrs Y lives at both addresses due to her complex needs.
26. Mrs X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought the complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis – the Council’s consideration of the Disabled Resident Parking Permit application

27. The Council says the documents provided in support of Mrs Y’s application showed two different addresses; the registered address for the Blue Badge and the address at which the vehicle is registered. The Council says it communicated its decision and the reasons for refusal to the applicant in writing. It says the correspondence explained the application could not be approved because the eligibility requirements of the permit scheme were not met.
28. The Council says it did not receive documentary evidence to demonstrate that Mrs Y resides at the application address, or at both addresses, or that the addresses form a single household for the purposes of the permit scheme. The Council says it received no evidence to demonstrate care responsibilities that would alter the residency position. The Council says it could not exercise discretion when considering Mrs Y’s application because the requirement that the vehicle is registered at the address of the Council-issued Blue Badge holder is a core eligibility criterion.
29. I acknowledge the Council’s comments. However, the information provided to the Council in support of the application stated:
• Mrs X holds LPA for Mrs Y’s financial affairs.
• Mrs X’s address is different to the address registered for Mrs Y’s Blue Badge.
• Mrs X is the named person on the Motability agreement. This is because Mrs Y could not sign the agreement and Mrs X holds LPA for Mrs Y.
• Mrs Y is the registered keeper of the vehicle. DVLA records show the registered keeper’s address to be the same as Mrs X’s address.
• Mrs Y is liable for council tax at the same address as the one registered for her Blue Badge.
• Mrs Y lives at both addresses due to her disability and complex needs.
30. It is for the Council to make its own decisions regarding eligibility, having first considered the information provided to it. I acknowledge the Council says it assessed Mrs Y’s application against the published criteria, and determined Mrs Y was not eligible for the Disabled Resident Parking Permit.
31. However, I have seen no evidence to demonstrate how the Council considered the above information and Mrs Y’s specific circumstances, and how those circumstances, and the reasons given for the different addresses held for Mrs Y, affected the application.
32. As part of the Principles of Good Administrative Practice, we expect councils to keep proper and appropriate records to demonstrate the rationale for decisions. As a result, we would expect to see a record of how the Council considered the reasons given regarding the disparity with the addresses, together with the explanation that Mrs Y resides at both addresses. The failure to record this rationale is not in line with the Principles of Good Administrative Practice. This is fault. The injustice is avoidable distress and uncertainty as to how the Council considered the information provided to it.

The issuance of the Penalty Charge Notice

33. The Council apologised to Mrs X for issuing the PCN. It said this was due to a system error and it confirmed it had cancelled the penalty.
34. The Council also apologised for issuing its email regarding the activation of Mrs Y’s Disabled Resident Parking Permit and apologised for the errors that led to the permit being temporarily approved. It said the email should not have been generated because the permit should not have been approved. The Council said it had provided training and feedback to the officer involved.
35. I acknowledge the Council’s comments and the apology provided to Mrs X. However, the ‘system errors’ in the Council’s handling of Mrs Y’s application for a permit, and its issuance of the PCN is fault. The injustice is the avoidable distress and frustration at the Council’s subsequent decision that the permit was not approved, and at receiving a PCN despite initially being advised the permit was active.

Back to top

Action

36. To address the injustice identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:
1. Provide an apology for the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings;
2. Reconsider Mrs Y’s permit application, taking into account documentation provided in support of the application and the reasons provided for the different addresses. When communicating the outcome, the Council should explain what information it considered and how it made its decision having considered the information provided to it, and
3. Provide training to relevant staff regarding the Principles of Good Administrative Practice, in particular, the need to keep appropriate records of the rationale for decisions.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

38. I have found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above actions to remedy the injustice identified and I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman