The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse an application for a disabled parking bay. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, needs to park outside his house and complains the Council will not approve an application for a disabled parking bay. The Council offered an alternative location which Mr X says is unsuitable and would not meet his needs.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X applied for a disabled parking bay to be installed outside his home. The Council refused the application because the road does not meet the minimum road width as required by the traffic regulation signs and the manual for streets.
Guidance suggests that, in these circumstances, councils should offer an alternative location for a bay within 50 metres. The Council offered Mr X a bay in another street within 50 metres. Mr X says the alternative location is too far away and inaccessible.
Mr X disagrees with the decision. He says the road is wide enough to safely accommodate a disabled parking bay and allow access for emergency vehicles.
I appreciate Mr X needs to park outside his house and a disabled parking bay would facilitate this. I can also see that the proposed alternative location is not ideal and is not what Mr X wants or thinks is practicable. However, I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. This is because the Council must follow the minimum width requirements which are stated in the regulations. Mr X’s road does not meet this requirement so there is no suggestion of fault in the Council’s decision to refuse the application.
The Council acting correctly by looking for an alternative location for the bay and it found one, within the recommended distance, which meets the rules. I appreciate the proposed location may not meet Mr X’s needs but that does not mean the Council’s suggestion was wrong. In addition, the Council is constrained because it can only offer a bay which meets the requirements and it can only offer a bay if there is a location which satisfies the requirements. We cannot ask the Council to approve a bay that does not meet the legal rules.
I acknowledge Mr X has been left in a difficult position but there is nothing to suggest this is due to fault by the Council and, for the reasons explained above, it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman