The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a disabled parking bay. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains the Council will not grant a disabled parking bay for her son.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes her application, the Council’s decision, images of the property and the policy. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.
My assessment
The Council can approve the provision of advisory (disabled) parking bays. The bays cannot be enforced and any driver can park in them. The Council only approves an application if the person has absolutely no choice but to park on the street. The Council does not approve an application when the property has a garage or off-road parking.
Ms X applied for a bay for her son. He has various health issues and users a wheelchair. Until about six months ago Ms X parked on her front drive. Ms X fenced in the drive to keep her son safe and away from the road. The fence means she can no longer park on the drive.
Images, and information from a property website, suggest Ms X has a garage which is accessed from the garden and from a driveway at the side of the property.
The Council refused the application because Ms X has a garage and access to parking at the front of the property. It said she has options to make provision for off-street parking.
Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision. She says the garage belongs to her neighbour, she needs a fence at the front, and the drive at the side is not wide enough for a wheelchair and car.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The policy says the Council will only provide a bay when there is absolutely no alternative to on-street parking. The Council has decided this does not apply because Ms X has access to parking at the front and rear. Until a few months ago Ms X parked on the front drive. I appreciate she wants to keep her son away from the road but she could achieve this by installing a gate so she has both a fence and access to the front drive for parking. In addition, images show a garage within the curtilage of the property so, while Ms X says it belongs to her neighbour, I can see why the Council decided Ms X has access to a garage. Further, even if the Council installed a bay, it would not be for Ms X’s exclusive use and could be used by any driver.
We are not an appeal body and have no power to change a Council’s decision. We can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council made its decision and, in this case, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making to warrant an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman