Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to temporarily remove some disabled parking spaces to accommodate nearby construction works. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X, a Disabled person, complains the Council suspended 40% of the disabled parking bays with the closest access to the town centre while it carried out works to the area. She says this puts Disabled people at a distinct disadvantage when accessing the town centre’s amenities. Mrs X complains the Council did not reduce the other standard parking bays. Also, she says the Council failed to consider the alternative options available to it and ignored the needs of disabled people. Mrs X says this is the second time the Council suspended disabled parking bays to store equipment when carrying out major works in the area.
2. Mrs X complains the Council failed to monitor the proper use of the disabled parking bays as they were frequently used by people who were not blue badge holders.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our further involvement.

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

5. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
6. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
8. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
10. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

11. Mrs X is a Disabled person and a blue badge holder. She complains the Council temporarily removed several parking bays so its contractors could use the area to store equipment during construction works in the area. Mrs X says this decision significantly impacts Disabled people’s access to the town centre’s amenities and breaches the Equality Act 2010.
12. 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 processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
13. Based on the evidence I have seen, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify investigating Mrs X’s complaint. This is based on the following:

• the Council carried out an equality impact assessment and explored the options of additional temporary disabled parking bays in the area. This led to the Council providing two additional temporary disabled parking bays nearby;
• the Council explained the temporary removal of the four parking bays was necessary as it would cause the least disruption to the parking area layout. It said it had assessed the area as the only suitable area given the nature of the construction works and closeness to the construction area; and,
• there would be a temporary reduction of two disabled parking bays overall in the area for the majority of the five-month construction period. But, during this time, 19% of the total parking spaces in the parking area remained available as disabled parking bays. This was above the minimum capacity recommended by the Department for Transport in its Guidance on Inclusive Mobility. The Guidance recommends 6% of the total capacity of parking spaces in car parks associated with shopping and the town centre’s amenities should be for visiting Disabled people.

14. The Council gave clear reasons for its decision and considered the impact on Disabled people, including by arranging additional temporary disabled parking bays to limit the impact. It is likely an investigation would find the Council had due regard to its duties under the Equality Act. So, we will not investigate this complaint.
15. I understand Mrs X disagrees with this decision. She says the additional parking bays are too far away and the Council has breached the Equality Act. We cannot decide whether the Council has breached the Equality Act. If Mrs X wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint further, it is reasonable to expect her to go to court. Only the courts can decide whether the Council has breached its equality duties towards Disabled people.
16. Mrs X’s complaint about the use of disabled parking bays by non-blue badge holders is premature. I will not investigate this complaint because it is reasonable to give the Council the chance to do so first. If Mrs X remains unhappy with the Council’s final complaint response, it is open to her to contact us again.
17. So far as Mrs X complains about the Council’s response to her complaint and the time and trouble she was put to raising the matter, we will not investigate. It is not a proportionate use of our limited resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling alone when we are not investigating the substantive matters. Any separable injustice is not significant enough to justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to temporarily remove some disabled parking spaces to accommodate nearby construction works. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman