Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suspension of disabled parking bays in a town centre on market days. The claimed injustice does not directly flow from the alleged fault by the District Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has allowed disabled parking bays to be suspended twice a week in order to facilitate a market in the town centre.
2. Mr X believes this breaches the Equality Act 2010, as disabled people are either forced to park further away or are prevented from accessing the town on market days.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide any fault has not directly caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included some of their complaint correspondence.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the organisation. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice does not directly flow from the alleged faults.
8. The District Council has explained that whilst it supported the suspension of the disabled bays on market days, as part of its wider town centre pedestrianisation scheme, the decision was ultimately taken by the County Council.
9. As such, any fault by the District Council has not directly resulted in the injustice claimed by Mr X, as it was not responsible for making the decision to suspend the bays. With reference to paragraph 3 above, the Ombudsman will therefore not investigate this complaint against the District Council. It is open to Mr X to complain to the County Council instead, about how it reached its decision to suspend the bays.
10. As the Ombudsman is not investigating the substantive issue being complained about, it would not be a good use of our resources to pursue any concerns about the District Council’s complaint handling in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the alleged fault by the District Council has not directly caused him the claimed injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman