Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to provide a parking bay.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council refused to provide a designated parking bay for her disabled child.
2. She also complained the Council suspended two disabled parking bays for another family to use which was unfair.
3. She said this has compromised her child’s safety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We provide a free service and use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

6. 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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I investigated complaint one. I stopped investigating complaint 2 because the records indicate the bays were suspended for less than two months before the Council reinstated them. The Council upheld her complaint, said it should not have happened and apologised. It offered her a payment of £900 to reflect her avoidable inconvenience, distress and time and trouble complaining. Further investigation of this point would not achieve anything and any injustice (inconvenience) is not serious enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant guidance

10. Our Principles of Good Administrative Practice set out our expectations for councils. We expect councils to take reasonable, timely decisions based on relevant considerations and to be open and clear, giving decisions for reasons.
11. The Council has a procedure for dealing with requests for dedicated parking pays for those with disabilities. To get a dedicated bay, an applicant needs to be a blue badge holder, be unable to walk 20 meters, be in receipt of specific disability benefits and have no access to off-street parking.
12. Ms X has an autistic child who needs close supervision to maintain their safety. She lives in a block of flats in an area which has permit controlled parking for residents. Ms X has a blue badge for Y. Blue badge holders can park on single yellow lines and in residents only bays.
13. The block of flats was built in accordance with council policy and has no on-site parking. The planning permission included two blue badge bays on a nearby road. Ms X’s concern is that those bays are not always available, are sometimes abused and she wants guaranteed parking for her child’s safety.
14. The records indicate a council officer visited Ms X, discussed the matter with her and carried out an inspection of neighbouring streets. They emailed Ms X after and said the ‘nearest’ street where an additional bay was possible, would be too far away from Ms X’s house.
15. Ms X complained to the Council about the matters she has raised with us. The Council’s responses said:
• There was no feasible option to create a dedicated bay on the closest roads as they were narrow with single and double yellow lines or a major route with double yellow lines and a bus lane.
• The nearest road with on-street parking was over 100 meters away and was not practical
• The two existing bays were for blue badge holders living in the development and other badge holders. Converting one to a dedicated bay would limit availability to other badge holders.

Was there fault?

16. It is not the LGSCO’s role to say whether or not Ms X should have a designated parking bay. Our investigations focus on the way councils make decisions. If there is no fault in the decision-making process, we will not criticise a council.
17. Ms X lives in a busy inner London borough. Parking is in high demand and limited in her neighbourhood. I have no grounds to criticise the Council’s view that there is no suitable place which is near enough that can be converted to a dedicated bay. There is no fault by the Council because it considered Ms X’s circumstances, visited her and explained why it refused her request. The Council also considered the request for one of the existing bays to be converted for her exclusive use. It explained this would limit availability for users. This explanation is clear and is in line with our expectations and there is no fault.

Back to top

Decision

18. I find no fault by the Council in the decision to refuse Ms X’s application for a designated parking bay.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman