Summary: Miss X complained the Council was taking too long to process her disabled parking space application and of poor communication. We found fault with the Council’s communication but not its processes or the overall time it may take to complete them. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a payment to her.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council is taking too long to process her application for a disabled parking space outside of her home. She also complains the process lacks transparency and that communication has been poor.
2. Miss X says this hinders her ability to carry out her everyday life and this has affected her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered all the information Miss X provided and discussed this complaint with her. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
7. Miss X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s procedure

8. The Council has a procedure for applying for a disabled parking space on the highway.
9. Its website provides some information on:
• who may be eligible for a disabled parking space;
• the types of disabled parking space available (formal bays in both commercial and residential areas);
• how the Council adds all disabled parking restrictions on to a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) so it can ensure all disabled spaces are only used by holders of valid disabled badges;
• how the Council will only consider formal disabled parking spaces when it is reviewing parking restrictions in a specific area;
• how any request will be added to the next group of restrictions being considered; and
• how the process may take up to 18 months to complete.

What happened

10. At the end of January 2022, Miss X applied for a disabled parking space on the road outside her home.
11. At the beginning of March 2022, Miss X sent in a doctor’s letter to confirm her disability. The Council confirmed receipt of this email and clarified it was in the process of reviewing its procedures for residential disabled parking spaces. It said the legal requirement was now to complete a full public consultation which had not previously been needed.
12. Over the next few days, the Council also confirmed it only notified applicants of progress when funding had been secured to begin a public consultation.
13. At the beginning of June 2022, Miss X emailed the Council to ask for an update on how her application was progressing.
14. The Council responded a few days later to advise that there were eight stages to the process. These were:
• request received from member of the public;
• review of the details by the TRO team to ensure the application complies with current policy;
• to accept or reject the application;
• secure funding to undertake formal public consultation and the amendment of the TRO in line with national policy and procedure for TROs;
• to undertake formal public consultation, where any neighbour objections must be considered as part of the legal process;
• report results of the public consultation and request consent to update the TRO;
• to update the TRO (subject to approval); and
• place the works order for the lines to be painted on the street.
15. The Council confirmed Miss X’s application was currently at stage two and that it was awaiting a completed doctor’s form confirming her mobility issues.
16. In mid-June 2022, Miss X complained to the Council about the lack of progress and delays she was experiencing with her application. She queried why she needed to send a completed doctor’s form as she had already done this in March.
17. At the beginning of July 2022, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint. In its letter, it:
• again detailed the eight-stage process;
• again advised she was at the second stage;
• again confirmed the Council would only notify applicants when step four had been completed; and
• outlined why the Council did not consider the doctor’s letter sent in March explained the issues caused by her disabilities, which it needed to do.
18. The letter finished by saying the Council did not uphold Miss X’s complaint due to the issue with the letter, but apologised for not informing her sooner that the letter did not provide the correct information.
19. Unhappy with its response, Miss X escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s process at the end of July 2022. She said she wanted to know:
• when the doctor’s letter was checked and rejected;
• why her blue disabled parking badge (blue badge) information the Council already had could not be used to progress her application;
• why the Council questioned her address on the doctor’s letter; and
• why there had been such a delay when the Council knew of her disability as it had issued her blue badge.
20. The Council sent its stage two response at the end of September 2022. The Council:
• said it could not confirm the exact date it had assessed the doctor’s letter and that it would have been helpful for previous communications to have mentioned the letter would be reviewed;
• confirmed it only advised Miss X of the letter issue when she complained about lack of progress and therefore upheld that aspect of the complaint;
• explained it could not have accessed her blue badge information as the data had not been gathered for the purpose of a disabled parking space application. This had now been done and it removed the need to ask her for a new doctor’s letter;
• said it partially upheld her complaint about this aspect as she was not advised a letter was no longer needed, which would have been helpful to her;
• said it did not uphold her complaint about the Council needing to confirm she lived in the area as her address within the local area had been handwritten on the letter;
• confirmed that having reviewed its website information (see paragraph nine above), the Council did not conclude the overall delay was unacceptable; and that the main cause of the delay was outside of the Council’s control; and
• agreed there had been some confusion about the medical evidence needed.
21. The Council ended the letter by saying it recognised there could be improvements to its processes. These would include a review of its website information and also how and when it would notify applicants. The Council partially upheld the communication aspect of the complaint and signposted Miss X to the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy.
22. Further communication passed between Miss X, the Council and her local Councillor throughout the next few months.
23. Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in the middle of November 2022.
24. By the middle of April 2023, the Council confirmed Miss X’s application was at stage five of eight.

Analysis

Doctor’s letter

25. The Council only advised Miss X that it still needed a completed doctor’s form when she contacted it to check progress with her application at the beginning of June 2022, despite confirming receipt of the email containing the letter back at the beginning of March 2022.
26. The Council then only advised her that the doctor’s letter was unacceptable to it in response to her stage one complaint a short while later.
27. The Council has not been able to provide evidence to say when it assessed the doctor’s letter and made the decision the letter did not provide the necessary information.
28. This meant Miss X’s application stayed at stage two until the Council eventually accessed, with her permission, her blue badge information at the beginning of July 2022. This meant the application could then move to the next stage.
29. The Council did not uphold this aspect of the complaint at stage one saying that it apologised she was not informed of the issue sooner. It did uphold this part of the complaint at stage two “due to the confusion this aspect (the letter) caused.”
30. The Council said in its stage two response that due to the nature of the process and the length of time it had advised it may take, it could not “conclude that the overall delay is unacceptable … which was confirmed within your stage one complaint response.”
31. On the balance of probabilities, and with a lack of any other evidence provided by the Council, I am satisfied that whilst the process may not yet have reached the 18 months outlined, the delay in sorting out the issue with the doctor’s form was avoidable. It was only due to Miss X’s contact with the Council that the issue came to light. Miss X’s application did not therefore move along the process for a full four months until the Council sent its stage one response advising of the issue. It is unclear how or when the issue would have been highlighted to Miss X had she not chased this with the Council. This is fault and would have caused Miss X avoidable frustration and confusion. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Poor communication

32. Miss X complains of poor communication from the Council.
33. The stage two response did uphold Miss X’s complaint about the doctor’s letter issue. Its stage one response had confirmed the issue not being communicated to her but did not uphold any part of that aspect of the complaint. The Council’s stance here seems confused in admitting to not informing her of the issue but not upholding the complaint about delay at all as the letter had not provided the correct information. This lack of clarity is fault. It will have led to avoidable frustration and confusion for Miss X. I have made a recommendation below to remedy the injustice caused.
34. In addition to the issues described above with the doctor’s letter, in its stage two response to Miss X, the Council advised that its parking services department was able to access her blue badge information in July 2022. This had meant there was no need to ask for a new doctor’s letter. The Council advised it had not told Miss X of this update, “which would have been helpful to you.”
35. Whilst the Council did then partially uphold this aspect of her complaint, it is further evidence of poor communication on its part. This is fault. I have made a recommendation below to remedy the injustice caused.
36. The Council took over two months to issue Miss X’s stage two complaint response, set against its published target of 20 working days. It apologised for this delay and confirmed its belief Miss X had been kept informed.

The process

37. Miss X complains the process for disabled parking spaces lacks transparency.
38. The Council’s website does give some information about the process, but not the full process. It does advise of the expected timescales.
39. The Council confirmed to me it does not currently have any other information available to disabled parking bay applicants other than that on its website.
40. The Council said in its stage two complaint response that it recognised there were improvements to be made to the process. As part of my enquiries to it, I asked what these improvements were, what progress had been made against them and what expected timescales were.
41. The Council responded to advise that:
• it hoped to process eligible requests in a more timely manner and hold parking consultations three times per year;
• it would review its website to include clarity on the process, timescales and how different stages will be communicated; and
• it would keep applicants informed of the progress overall.
42. The Council confirmed to me that the funding was in place to complete more consultations and it hoped website and communication improvements would be in place by early summer.
43. I am unable to question the process used by the Council or the length of time it may take to complete because the Council is within its rights to operate the process as it sees fit. The Council has confirmed that it hopes to make improvements as outlined above. There is no fault on the Council’s part in relation to the process.

Advisory bays

44. As part of my enquiries to the Council, I asked what its position on advisory disabled bays was. Advisory bays are bays marked out as ‘disabled’ but are not legally enforceable if someone without a valid blue badge chooses to park in them.
45. The Council responded to say that the Department for Transport (DfT) does not now authorise advisory markings on public highways. The DfT requires councils to remove existing advisory markings when undertaking any road refreshing works in the general area.
46. Further clarification from the Council confirmed that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, chapter three, “Traffic Signs Manual” no longer includes provision for a disabled bay without regulatory signage. This means that advisory bays cannot now be painted as they are not enforceable and as such have no signage.
47. I am satisfied the Council has not acted with fault in relation to no longer providing advisory bays.

Equality Act 2010 (the Act)

48. As part of my enquiries, I asked the Council what regard it had to its duties under the Act, when devising an eight-stage process and the length of time it takes to complete this.
49. In response, the Council said:
• there were no regulatory requirements to introduce a resident disabled bay on the highway; and
• that it recognised disabled parking bays increased ease of access and independence for disabled and less mobile residents which it felt demonstrated its regard to the Act.
50. The Council further outlined the “substantial funding” required in addition to the other steps needed when processing disabled parking space applications which is why the process can take up to 18 months.
51. The Council confirmed its commitment to speeding the process up and provided further detail of what steps it was taking to reduce the time taken from start to finish but advised the eight-stage process would remain.
52. I am satisfied the Council has had regard for its duties under the Act and has not acted with fault.

The current situation

53. The Council responded to my draft decision to advise there has been further development in how it intends to communicate with applicants. It said:
• when an application is received, an automated acknowledgment will be sent and will seek to reflect the timeline for the next correspondence;
• it will advise whether an application has been accepted and meets the essential criteria for a resident disabled parking bay. This will be within 21 days of the application being received;
• when the overarching TRO process is in place and the Council holds consultations three times a year, the above response will include a timeline for the next consultation;
• a few days before the consultation goes live, a reminder notification will be sent to the resident, including the consultation end date;
• applicants will be notified the consultation has closed and given an estimated timeline for a decision (dependent on the number of responses received from the consultation); and
• the outcome of the decision will then be shared with an estimated timeline for implementation (where applicable).

Back to top

Agreed action

54. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed it will take the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision:
• apologise to Miss X;
• pay her £100 for the distress caused by the poor communication and avoidable delay; and
• share the Ombudsman’s guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities with officers handling complaints;
55. The payment is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
56. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the actions above.

Back to top

Final decision

57. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman