Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to properly manage and communicate the implementation of disabled parking bays. This is because the Council has provided a suitable remedy which is in line with the Ombudsman guidance for part of the complaint, and there is insufficient evidence of fault for the remaining part.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has failed to properly manage and communicate the implementation of the disabled parking bays. She says enforcement action was taken without clearly confirming when the bays had legally come into force. She also said she was given incorrect information about parking permits. Miss X says this has caused her significant stress over a prolonged period.
2. Miss X wants the Council to:
• apologise;
• acknowledge its failings;
• provide an explanation into what went wrong and reviews it procedures; and
• provide a financial payment.

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, 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 applied for a formal disabled parking bay, which the Council installed. In early 2025, she contacted the Council after the bays were unexpectedly removed and asked why this had happened. The Council explained it had reviewed the original application after receiving resident complaints and decided the bay was not suitable because of safety concerns. It said the bays had been installed in error and would remain in place while it completed a further assessment. The Council apologised for not communicating this to Miss X sooner.
7. Miss X later asked the Council whether she could park in the bays. In September 2025, the Council told her the bays were now formal disabled parking bays. Miss X subsequently complained after receiving a penalty charge notice (PCN).
8. The Council cancelled the PCN and explained the delay in reinstalling the new bays was due to further consultation and weather conditions. It said it would issue a notice in the newspaper to advise when enforcement begins. We could not criticise the Council for acting on safety concerns and reinstalling the bays. It has explained what went wrong, acted appropriately and cancelled the PCN.
9. But the communication with Miss X has been poor and there was fault in how the Council handled her complaint. The stage one response was referred to as an enquiry and did not advise Miss X of her right to escalate matters. To remedy the injustice to Miss X for the fault identified the Council has agreed to apologise and pay her £150 within four weeks of the final decision. The Council told us Miss X would receive a letter when the bays become legally enforceable.
10. Miss X also asked whether the Council offered a virtual permit as an alternative to displaying her Blue Badge. The Council told her the Blue Badge must be clearly displayed and said it did not offer a digital alternative. It later explained Miss X could apply for a resident disabled parking permit, which may give her more parking options. However, it said this would not allow her to park in a disabled bay without displaying a Blue Badge. As the Council has explained its position and there is no evidence it gave Miss X misleading information, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the Council has provided a suitable remedy which is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance for part of the complaint, and there is insufficient evidence of fault for the remaining part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman