Summary: There was fault by the Council because of poor communication. It has apologised for this and offered Mr X a symbolic payment which is an appropriate remedy. It has reconsidered Mr X’s application for a disabled parking bay and offered him an alternative location. Mr X does not like the Council’s alternative proposal and wants the bay to be in a different location and for there to be double yellow lines at the end. The Council has explained what Mr X needs to do to request double yellow lines. The Council has explained its reasons for refusing Mr X’s preferred option. So there is no fault in its decisions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his application for a disabled parking bay. He said:
1. The location of the bay is too far from his house and is unsuitable because of his mobility issues, as confirmed by an occupational therapist
2. The Council refused to re-position the bay more than 1.2 meters from the turning point, obstructing access to those vehicles using the turning point
3. The Council refused to add double yellow lines
4. There was no site visit
5. There was no direct consultation
6. There was no stage two response.
7. It failed to consider his request for an extension to the length of the bay and the narrow width of the pavement
8. Refusal to install a dropped kerb.
2. Mr X said this caused avoidable distress and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
4. 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’. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to extend the parking bay’s size to accommodate his new wheelchair adapted vehicle, the width of the pavement or the failure to install a dropped kerb (complaints (g) and (h)). These are matters which he has not complained to the Council about. It is reasonable for him to use the Council’s complaint procedure.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr 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. The Council’s published information about disabled parking bays says:
• It usually visits the location, but the person does not need to be there
• It will decide applications within eight weeks
• Installation can take up to three months after the decision is made
• It may not provide a bay if it would cause disruption to traffic.
11. Our Principles of Good Administrative Practice set out our general expected standards for councils. We expect councils to:
• Get it right. This includes following the organisations policy and guidance and take reasonable, timely decisions based on relevant considerations
• Being open and accountable. This includes providing appropriate advice and giving reasons for decisions

Summary of key events

12. Mr X applied for a disabled parking bay at the end of November 2024. He said parking was difficult in his street. There is a dead end and a turning circle next to his property.
13. The Council approved Mr X’s application in the middle of December. Internal notes and a drawing indicate the Council decided to place the bay starting at the second kerb stone away from the turning circle leaving 1.2 meters clearance.
14. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s decision and complained in February 2025. He said the Council had refused his request to review the location of the proposed bay and not explained its decision.
15. The Council’s stage one complaint response (also in February) partly upheld Mr X’s complaint. It said:
• It accepted its communication was poor.
• The turning circle was considered during the initial assessment and the bay was assessed to begin two full kerb stones from the turning circle.
• There was a re-assessment, but no other suitable location. Moving the bay a further few meters east (as he had requested) would mean that there would be a space large enough for another vehicle to park between the end of the bay and the start of the turning circle and this would result in obstructing the turning point.
• When assessing for disabled parking bays the presumption is for them to be located as close as reasonably possible to the person’s home. The proposed location meets the Council’s obligations under the Equality Act therefore.
• It had considered the information held by the blue badge team about him as well. The road safety team had assessed for a further location and it was offering to install a bay outside a neighbouring property, next to an existing disabled parking bay. This was about 22 meters walk from his property and would not obstruct the turning point while making best use of available parking space.
• He could escalate his complaint to stage two.
16. Mr X escalated his complaint to the second stage of the Council’s complaint procedure. He said:
• The process had been drawn out and the response only considered other road users’ safety and not his needs.
• The Council’s alternative solution was completely unreasonable and ignored his mobility difficulties. He asked the Council to add double yellow lines to the end of his proposed location to prevent other vehicles from parking behind the bay.
• His occupational therapist’s view was the alternative proposal was too far away for safe use.
• A local business had said their vans could not turn safely.
• No-one had visited him.
17. Hearing nothing from the Council, Mr X complained to us in May. We told him he needed to use all stages of the Council’s complaint procedure; the Council also told us it would issue a stage two response within two weeks.
18. The Council responded at stage two of its complaint procedure at the end of May saying:
• It had decided his application within the published eight-week timescale.
• He queried the location. There was an email exchange and in April he agreed to the original location.
• It was sorry for any inconvenience, but the delay was caused by him querying the location.
• The average wait time for installing bays was 10 weeks: so the bay should be installed by 20 June.
• It was sorry for the delay providing the second stage complaint response and offered him a payment of £50 to recognise the frustration caused.
• The service responsible for parking bays cannot approve double yellow lines – this has to be done through a Traffic Regulation Order which is expensive and time consuming. If he thought this would be beneficial, he can apply through a website called ‘FixMyStreet.’
• The bay cannot be located more than 1.2 meters from the curve of the turning point because it would allow other cars to park behind it, blocking the turning point.
• The team doesn’t always need to visit the site if they have enough information from google maps.
• It had considered his walking difficulties. He could use a wheelchair to access the parking space.
• 1.2 meters is the standard distance for vehicles to be able to turn safely.
19. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s second response. He said the Council’s proposal was the lesser of two evils; the standard bay was not long enough for him to retrieve his wheelchair from the boot, the pavement at the bay’s location was too narrow and he would be forced to use the road to access his wheelchair and there was no dropped kerb. He asked the Council again to place the bay 1.8 to 2 meters from the corner.
20. The Council did not provide a further response. But it had already signposted Mr X to the LGSCO in its stage two response.

Findings

The location of the bay is too far from his house and is unsuitable because of his mobility issues, as confirmed by an occupational therapist

21. The Council has considered Mr X’s walking difficulties and has explained it is reasonable for him to use a wheelchair. I recognise Mr X does not like the Council’s consideration, but there is no fault in the decision and so there are no grounds for me to question it.

The Council refused to re-position the bay more than 1.2 meters from the turning point, obstructing access to those vehicles using the turning point

22. The Council has considered Mr X’s request and explained it would be unsafe because other vehicles might park behind the bay, obstructing the turning circle. The Council’s published policy says a bay may be refused for traffic disruption reasons. Although Mr X does not agree or like the decision, there is no fault as it is in line with council policy.

The Council refused to add double yellow lines

23. There is a separate process to request double yellow lines. The Council has explained this and provided advice on the action Mr X needs to take if he wants double yellow lines. This is in line with our Principles of Good Administration and so there is no fault.

There was no site visit or direct consultation

24. There is no legal requirement for a visit and the Council’s policy says a visit is usually arranged, but not in all cases. The Council has explained the tools it used to complete its decision-making. There is no fault.

There was no stage two response.

25. There was a stage two response, but it was delayed. This was fault, for which the Council has apologised and offered a small payment in recognition of the frustration caused. This is in line with our Guidance on Remedies and no further action by the Council is needed.
26. The Council did not have to reply to Mr X’s further email after it had provided a stage two response. And it had already explained to him that he needed to contact the LGSCO if he wished to escalate the matter further, so there is no fault.

Back to top

Decision

27. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has already taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice during its complaint procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman