Surrey County Council (25 002 800)

Category : Transport and highways > Traffic management

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 15 Jul 2025

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has breached the Equality Act by not making a disabled parking bay enforceable. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, Mr X, says the Council has breached the Equality Act because it is delaying making a disabled parking bay subject to enforcement. He wants the Council to immediately apply enforceable restrictions or add temporary measures until the review has been completed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We 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. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
  2. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by Mr X and information on the Council’s website. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. The Council’s website says people can apply for a disabled parking bay. It explains the bays are advisory, can be used by any blue badge holder, but no enforcement action can be taken against other drivers who uses the bay. The website says some bays are enforceable.
  2. Mr X applied for a disabled parking bay. The Council told him the bay would be advisory with no enforceable action. The Council installed the bay in late 2024. Mr X asked the Council to make the bay enforceable. The Council added his request to be considered in the next parking review for his area in September 2025.
  3. Mr X has difficulty using the bay due to people who do not have a badge parking in it. He complained to the Council about the delay in applying restrictions and said it had breached the Equality Act and Public Sector Equality Duty. The Council repeated that the bay is advisory and said it would need a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to change this. It explained that implementing a TRO is a long and costly legal process but one it must follow to make a bay enforceable. It said that due to the practicalities of creating a TRO, it decides them during parking reviews. It conducts these on a rolling basis for all the areas it is responsible for. For Mr X, the next review for his area is in September 2025 and his bay will then be considered for a TRO. The Council denied breaching equality legislation. It explained that initially it installs advisory bays because that is the quickest way to install a bay; but, if needed, it can then consider a TRO to add restrictions.
  4. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council explained it initially installs advisory bays and it notified Mr X of this when he applied. It explained that a TRO is needed before it can add restrictions and it correctly explained this is a long process which is why reviews are conducted in cycles rather than on request. It explained its approach in relation to equality issues, and its response shows it has had due regard to equalities. In particular, it uses the current process to ensure badge holders have access to a bay as soon as possible without having to wait for the next parking review; but, if an advisory bay is not sufficient, it provides the mechanism to start the TRO process, during which time badge holders have access to a bay. The Council cannot provide temporary restrictions without a TRO and it is applying the same process for everyone who requests restrictions for a bay.
  5. I appreciate Mr X cannot always park in the bay which causes difficulties. However, I have not seen anything to suggest we need to start an investigation and we do not have the power to tell the Council it must immediately add restrictions.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings