Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s rejection of an application for a disabled parking bay. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to reject his request for a disabled parking bay in the cul-de-sac where he lives. He says there is an existing bay in the location and that this indicates that another bay could be provided.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council rejected his application for a disabled parking bay near his home which was referred by the Social Care team to the highway authority in 2025.
6. The Council says it has inspected the location and that if the bay was constructed it would not be possible to install a bay without significantly affecting access and movement for other vehicles. The cul-de-sac is narrow and has limited manoeuvring space at its head.
7. Mr X says there is another bay in the location which has little use by the current householder. The Council has discretion to provide parking bays under its role as the highway authority. Where space is limited it can refuse further bays if it believes they would add to traffic movement concerns.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s rejection of an application for a disabled parking bay. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman