Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to renew the complainant’s disabled parking bay. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision not to renew his disabled parking bay. He says the Council did not ask for medical evidence and the other parking bay is further away than stated by the Council. Mr X wants the Council to renew the disabled parking bay.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes correspondence about the parking bays and the disabled parking bay guidance. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The policy says the Council will not issue a personalised disabled parking bay if the applicant has allocated off-street parking.
5. Mr X applied for a personalised disabled parking bay in 2018. On his application form he said he did not have any off-street parking. The Council provided Mr X with a disabled parking bay.
6. Mr X applied to renew the disabled parking bay in 2023. He sent a rent statement with the application which shows he rents a standard parking bay from his landlord. Mr X does not pay rent for the standard bay because he has a Blue Badge.
7. The Council decided not to renew the bay and said it would be removed. This is because Mr X has a parking bay allocated with his housing.
8. Mr X disagrees with the decision. He says he gets confused when filling out forms and had forgotten he had the other bay. He says the other bay is too far away for him to walk to and other people park in it. Mr X told me he is upset the Council suggested he might have committed fraud.
9. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X has another parking bay which he has had since 2007. The policy says people will not be awarded a disabled parking bay if they have other off-road parking. The policy does not stipulate any distance regarding the bay. The Council’s decision reflects the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. We do not act as an appeal body. We cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.
10. I acknowledged Mr X feels upset because the Council referred to possible fraud. But, to date, the Council has not made any findings about fraud and it is not fault for a council to consider if an act of fraud has occurred.
11. Mr X says someone else parks in the standard bay; this is an issue he can raise with his landlord. Mr X also says he is willing to give up the standard bay so he can have a disabled bay. But, the rules state the Council will only issue a bay if someone does not have alternative parking; Mr X has an allocated bay so there is no suggestion of fault in the Council’s decision that he cannot choose which parking provision to use.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman