Summary: There was no fault by the Council in its response to Mr X’s request for a disabled parking bay. The Council has considered his application according to legislation and its guidance.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has delayed considering his request for a disabled parking bay. He says it is discriminatory and unfair, as the Council has installed another bay before his, and this has this has caused him distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I have discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered its Guidance, its comments and documents it provided. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

5. A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) enables councils to introduce parking restrictions as part of its management of the highways for road users.
6. The Council’s own guidance is set out in its “Guidance on the Provision of Disabled Parking Bays in Residential Areas.”

What happened

7. In 2024 Mr X asked the Council for a disabled parking bay outside his home. However, the Council said it could not install advisory bay markings because Mr X lived in an area with parking restrictions. It said it would place his application on a waiting list for a mandatory bay.
8. In May 2024 Mr X complained to the Council that it had refused to install a disabled parking bay outside his house. However, he had seen that other people recently had disabled parking bays installed. He said he felt discriminated against.
9. The Council replied it had not refused to install a bay, but it had added Mr X’s application to a waiting list to implement in the future. It explained that as he lived in a residents parking zone it was covered by a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) which made the zone legally enforceable. Any proposed changes to the TRO, for example a disabled bay application, meant the Council had to update the TRO to install a mandatory disabled parking bay. This was a long statutory legal process costing £7500.
10. The Council said that it must ensure due diligence when spending public money. Therefore, it would only install mandatory bays where it was carrying out another scheme in the borough or where there were around ten other applications in the area that the Council would process together. Alternatively, the applicant could pay the full fee of £7500 for a bay to be installed. The Council said that when it had sufficient applicants it would get in touch with Mr X.
11. Mr X complained further the Council gave no timescales regarding the process.
12. The Council replied it could not confirm a timescale yet because it either had to wait for 10 requests from residents to consider as a group, or if it was carrying out work for a TRO in the area. It said it currently had only 4 applications for disabled bays in Mr X’s area and no planned TRO works. It said the legal statutory process it had to follow could sometimes take 12 - 18 months to implement particularly if there were objections to the proposals. In the meantime, the Council said Mr X could park on double yellow lines near his home as he had a blue badge.

Analysis

13. The Council has explained the process it must apply when an applicant lives in an area covered by a TRO. The Council carries out works when it has enough applications to process as a group. I have not found fault in this as the Council must properly consider the use of public funds.
14. I have not seen evidence of disability discrimination. I note the Council has explained Mr X can park near his home on double yellow lines where appropriate.
15. Mr X noted the Council had installed a disabled bay nearby. But the Council confirms the applicant requested this earlier than Mr X.
16. The Council has recently confirmed it has enough requests to start the TRO amendment process. It has explained the timescales in more detail.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I found no fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman