Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a disabled parking bay. There is not enough evidence of Miss X suffering a significant enough injustice to warrant our involvement and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council began to enforce parking restrictions for a disabled parking bay close to her home.
2. Miss X said this reduced available parking in the area and went against a previous agreement the Council made, to remove the restricted parking bay.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
  (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X said the Council agreed to remove parking restrictions for a disabled parking bay several years ago, so all residents could use it.
7. Miss X said in late 2025, a resident received a penalty charge notice (PCN) for parking in the space. She said this is despite the bay being used by all residents for several years.
8. Miss X complained to the Council and it said it had no record of a previous agreement to remove the disabled parking bay. However, it agreed to begin the process to remove it. It also considered a temporary suspension of the restrictions but ruled this out due to cost and time limitations.
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.
10. The disabled parking bay was introduced as part of a historical traffic regulation order (TRO), which appears not to have been enforced for some time, which allowed residents to use the parking bay. However, Miss X has access to other parking outside and nearby her home and therefore, there does not appear to be evidence of a significant injustice which would meet the threshold for an Ombudsman investigation.
11. Also, the Council has agreed to begin the process of removing the bay from the TRO. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome for Miss X.
12. For these reasons, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of a significant injustice and further investigation by us would not achieve a different outcome.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman