Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to progress Mr X’s application for a disabled parking bay. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice arising from the Council’s actions which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in processing his disabled parking bay application. He says he was told that the application was progressing to consultation but was then told the process has been delayed due to complications over the status of existing highway signs which were due to be removed.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(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 responses.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied to the Council for a disabled parking bay to be created near his home. He is a blue badge holder and the Council told him that he met the requirement for a bay. It identified a site near his home which has existing parking restriction signs for residents only which it told him were due to be removed.
6. The Council subsequently told him that although the signs were not subject to a traffic order they were placed by agreement with the highway authority and would need a formal process for removal or re-designation of the area. This information was not available to the officers who originally identified the site.
7. The Council apologised for the delay in progressing the application but made the point that it could not have gone ahead without the existing situation being resolved. Even if the application had been approved earlier it could not be legally applied until the traffic regulation matter was resolved.
8. We will to investigate this complaint. Disabled parking bay provision is a discretionary power available to highway authorities and they may approve or refuse them according to the present highway circumstances. The status of highway restrictions on UK roads is historically complex and this has been the case here.
9. When the matter over the signs has been resolved it will be for the Council as highway authority to progress the application and to decide whether or not it should be approved. There is no statutory timescale for the completion of these applications and traffic regulation orders can take up to two years to come into effect.
10. I do not consider that the Council’s decision to defer the process until the signage issue is resolved has caused significant injustice. Had it removed the signs and approved a bay without following the procedure the bay would not have had an enforceable status. The Council could also have decided to reject the application due to the existing parking arrangement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to progress Mr X’s application for a disabled parking bay. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice arising from the Council’s actions which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman