Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking provision because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Council has refused her application for a dropped kerb vehicle crossover, despite the blue badge bay near her home being used by a former neighbour.
2. Miss Y says she is unable to walk far due to a disability and feels it is unfair the former neighbour has left a vehicle in the blue badge bay when they no longer live at the property.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Miss Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss Y complained the Council has wrongly refused her application for a dropped kerb outside her home to allow her to park on the frontage of her property. Miss y says this is unfair because a former neighbour, who no longer lives on the road has parked a vehicle in a disabled bay outside her home. She says she has a disability and is unable to walk far and feels the Council’s decision is unfair.
7. The Council considered Miss Y’s complaint in both 2023 and 2024. It refused her application, explaining in an email to Miss Y in June 2024 this was because the property had too short a frontage, there was no road directly in front of her property and the verge which was in front of her property was not a highway.
8. Miss Y was unhappy with this and asked the Council to reconsider. It decided not to alter its decision having visited her property to confirm the length of her house’s frontage. It said her property frontage measured at a depth of 2.7 metres. The Council’s policy however requires a minimum depth of 4.75 metres.
9. As the Council has considered the application, carried out a site visit to consider it individually and formed its view in line with its policy, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way it made the decision to justify investigating. Consequently, we will not investigate.
10. Further, the law says people should normally complain to us within 12 months of becoming aware of an issue. Complaints brought to the Ombudsman more than 12 months after someone becomes aware of something a council has done are considered late. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons.
11. Miss Y’s was aware of her reason to complain about the Council’s actions when it informed her it had refused her application in both 2023 and 2024, more than 12 months ago. Consequently, her complaint is now late. We have discretion to disapply the rule outlined in paragraph four where we decide there are good reasons. Miss Y has not provided any good reasons why she did not bring her complaint to us within 12 months of knowing about the matter. It is reasonable to expect her to have complained sooner. Therefore, we will not exercise discretion to investigate her late complaint now.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman