Summary: Mr F complained about the Council’s refusal to relocate a disabled parking bay. We found no fault.

The complaint

1. Mr F complained about the Council’s refusal to relocate a disabled parking bay. As a result he is unable to leave his home independently as the bay is too far for him to walk.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I spoke to Mr F about his complaint and considered the information he sent and the Council’s response to my enquiries.
5. Mr F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled parking bays

6. A disabled parking bay is a designated parking space specifically allocated for people who hold a Blue Badge, which is a parking permit provided to individuals with severe mobility problems.
7. Blue Badge holders can apply to the Council for a disabled parking bay to be installed. The Council will consider the person’s mobility needs and, as the highway authority, the feasibility of installing a bay.

What happened

8. Mr F is a blue badge holder. There is a disabled parking bay in his road which he uses. In August 2024, Mr F applied to the Council for a parking bay. He said that the existing one was too far from his house and he was unable to walk there. He asked for the bay to be moved to in front of his house.
9. The Council visited the site on 21 August. It found that Mr F wanted the existing disabled parking bay to be moved about 10 metres closer to his home. The Council says the current parking bay is protected from oncoming traffic by a built-out area. The proposed new location, however, was on a bend and would require oncoming traffic to move to the wrong side of the road, potentially causing conflict with oncoming vehicles.
10. The Council wrote to Mr F on 19 November. It said it was unable to move the existing parking bay or install a new one outside Mr F’s home. This was because there was no suitable location; Mr F’s proposed location was not suitable as it could affect traffic flow.
11. Mr F replied with photographs showing that cars already parked in the proposed location. He said he wished to appeal the decision.
12. The Council called Mr F on 12 December. He said he disagreed that the proposed location was not suitable and believed that the Council was discriminating against him. He asked how to make a complaint. Mr F complained on 18 December.
13. The Council responded on 23 January 2025. It said it had considered Mr F’s mobility needs, the road layout, existing parking restrictions, and the road environment. The Council had found that the proposed location on the top of the bend, was not suitable for a disabled parking bay as it could affect traffic flow. Whilst the Council was aware that cars did park on the bend, it could not put in measures to encourage this as it would be a breach of Rule 243 of the Highway Code 2023.
14. Mr F remained dissatisfied and came to the Ombudsman. He said that in 2021, the Council had sited a disabled bay in a similar location to where it now says one cannot be placed. He also said another bay had recently been installed and a neighbour had had a dropped kerb installed, despite the Council refusing his request.
15. In response to my enquiries, the Council said that in 2021 Mr F applied for a disabled bay in a similar position and after consultation with Adult Social Care in October he asked for the application to be withdrawn. The Council had no record of any other bay being installed. It had recently visited the site but could not see a new dropped kerb or parking bay.

My findings

16. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the way the Council made its decision. If we consider it followed its processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.
17. I have therefore reviewed how the Council decided it was unable to install a disabled parking bay in Mr F’s preferred location.
18. The Council was aware of Mr F’s mobility needs, visited the site and considered the road layout and highway safety issues. It concluded it was not possible to install the bay.
19. I appreciate this is frustrating for Mr F, especially when cars normally park there, but there is no fault in the way the Council has made its decision. As a result, I cannot criticise that decision.
20. The Council has no records about other parking bays but even if it had previously approved some similar ones, this would not make it fault to refuse Mr F’s 2024 application.

Back to top

Decision

21. There was no fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman