Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his reports of vehicles parked across a dropped kerb next to the disabled parking bay at his address. Mr X says the vehicles blocked his access to the street and prevented him from using his car. Mr X also complained about the Council’s handling of his complaints. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and financial remedy to Mr X, provide training to its staff and to review its Member’s Enquiry policy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his reports of vehicles parked across a dropped kerb next to the disabled parking bay at his previous address. Mr X says the vehicles blocked his access to the street and prevented him from using his car.
2. Mr X complained:
1. The Council did not take appropriate action regarding vehicles parked across the dropped kerb and/or double yellow lines next to the disabled parking bay. Mr X says the dropped kerb was installed specifically for wheelchair users living at the address. He says wheelchair users cannot cross the street if the dropped kerb is blocked.
2. The Council did not take appropriate action to address the ongoing parking issues, despite a Member’s Enquiry response suggesting it would consider further measures.
3. The Council did not respond to contact made by the Police regarding the parking issue.
3. Mr X also complained about the Council’s handling of his complaints. He complained:
1. The Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for him to make his complaints. Mr X said the Council did not take his complaints verbally and instead directed him to its online complaint form.
2. A Councillor failed to respond to texts and emails sent on behalf of Mr X.
3. The Councillor carried out a Member’s Enquiry without speaking to Mr X and provided their response to a third party instead of directly to him.
4. Mr X said the Council’s failure to take appropriate action meant he was unable to leave his property for long periods of time. He said this led to missed hospital and doctor’s appointments and negatively impacted his social life.
5. Mr X would like the Council to make reporting parking issues more accessible and for it to provide training to its officers regarding parking enforcement. He would also like the Council to provide a financial remedy and produce an action plan setting out how it will investigate and remedy any failures to make reasonable adjustments to its service users.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
7. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
8. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
10. I made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided.
11. Mr X and the Council provided comments on a previous draft of this decision. I considered those comments and issued an amended draft decision. Mr X and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on the amended draft decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Parking enforcement

12. The Traffic Management Act 2004, (the Act), says vehicles in a special enforcement area must not park on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, where the footway is lowered to meet the level of the carriageway, for the purpose of:
• Assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway
• Assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway

The Act sets out specific exceptions to the above.

13. The Act says an appropriate authority may impose a penalty charge where a road traffic contravention occurs.
14. The Council’s website states parking in front of a dropped kerb for a footway is not allowed at any time. It says dropped kerbs allow for pedestrians, wheelchair users and people with prams to cross the road. The website acknowledges some dropped kerbs are to allow access for residents who have a driveway outside of their property.
15. The Council’s website states service users can report illegally or dangerously parked vehicles on the public highway using its online service, via a mobile telephone application, or by telephone. The website says the Council will do its best to visit enforcement requests within the hours of operation but cannot guarantee it will investigate every request in a timely manner.
16. Civil Enforcement Officers, (CEO) may issue Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) to vehicles contravening parking restrictions. The London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement, (the Code of Practice) says enforcement authorities may decide to clamp or remove a vehicle following the issue of a PCN. However, the Code of Practice says enforcement authorities may also decide there are some situations when a CEO may decide not to issue a PCN.
17. The Code of Practice says in most cases, the choice of whether to clamp or remove a vehicle will be influenced by the type of contravention, where it is committed, and the availability of resources or equipment.
18. Under regulations for the Act, a vehicle owner may be classed as a ‘persistent evader’. This may occur where a vehicle owner has three or more recorded contraventions where the penalties have not been paid, represented against, or appealed against within the statutory time limits. This may also occur where the vehicle owner’s representations and appeals have been rejected and the penalties remain unpaid.
19. The Code of Practice says any clamping or removal activity for a persistent evader parked in a designated parking place cannot take place until at least 15 minutes after the issue of a PCN. It also says enforcement authorities may remove vehicles parked in a location which is not a parking place, (such as those observed on yellow lines), immediately after the issue of a PCN.

Member’s Enquiries and the Council’s policy

20. The Council defines a Member’s Enquiry as a routine enquiry made by a Member, normally on behalf of a resident or customer in their Ward. Enquiries may relate to issues concerning a specific impact of an event on a Member’s Ward, or to a resident or a group of residents in a Member’s Ward.
21. The Council’s Member’s Enquiry Policy says when a Member submits a Member’s Enquiry, they must include certain information, including the resident’s name, address, telephone number and email address.
22. The policy also says Members should include in the initial contact, the consent of the resident or their legal representative to allow the Council to provide information to the Member. The Council recognises however, that generally, Members have implied consent for the Council to release information to the Member. Implied consent only applies to the release of basic, non-sensitive information.

Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty

23. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
24. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
25. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
26. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.
27. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires all local authorities (and bodies acting on their behalf) to have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and
• foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

28. The broad purpose of the Public Sector Equality Duty is to consider equality and good relations into the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires equality considerations to be reflected into the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these issues to be kept under review.

Principles of good administrative practice

29. In 2018 the Ombudsman published a guidance document setting out the standards we expect from bodies in jurisdiction “Principles of Good Administrative Practice”. This includes:

• Stating the criteria for decision making and giving reasons for decisions
• Keeping proper and appropriate records
• Explaining clearly the rationale for decisions and recording them

What happened

30. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
31. Mr X is a wheelchair user and lived in a property with an off-road disabled parking space. The parking space is accessed from the road via a dropped kerb. The road on which Mr X’s previous property is located also has double yellow lines. Mr X says vehicles regularly parked across the dropped kerb, preventing him from using his car and from crossing the road in his wheelchair.
32. Mr X requires reasonable adjustments to be made for him to access some Council services. One of these reasonable adjustments is to provide detailed information in a face-to-face setting, either in person or by video call.
33. In February 2023, Mr X says he complained to the Council about the vehicles parked across the dropped kerb. Mr X’s carer kept a record of Mr X’s contact with the Council regarding this matter.
34. In July 2023, Mr X reported an incident to the Police. The incident involved Mr X and the owner of a car who Mr X said repeatedly parked across the dropped kerb. Mr X provided a witness statement to the Police regarding this matter.
35. Mr X called the Council in September 2023 to complain again about the parking situation. Mr X’s carer kept a record on behalf of Mr X of this contact with the Council. Mr X said an officer told him it did not matter about the dropped kerb, as vehicles could park to load and unload for 20 minutes, even if this blocked the gate to Mr X’s disabled parking space. Mr X told the Council about the car owner who he said repeatedly parked across the dropped kerb, and about his report to the Police. Mr X said the Police had contacted the Council but neither they nor Mr X had received a response. Mr X says the officer told him they would speak to the Council’s Parking Development Team and get back to him.
36. Mr X says he called his local Councillor, Councillor A, several times at about this time to discuss his concerns. Mr X says he left voicemails asking Councillor A to make reasonable adjustments to arrange a face-to-face meeting with him, or to speak to him via a video call.
37. In late September 2023, Mr X’s carer sent a text message to Councillor A. They said Mr X had called Councillor A and left voice messages but had not heard back.
38. On the same day, a third party whom I shall refer to as Mx B, emailed Councillor A to tell them about the issues Mr X was experiencing. Mx B asked Councillor A for assistance to enquire about installing signs to deter parking across the dropped kerb, and to explore the possibility of installing another dropped kerb to improve access.
39. About a week later, in early October 2023, Mx B emailed Councillor A again, providing Mr X’s name, address, and telephone number. Mx B asked Councillor A if it would be possible for them to call Mr X.
40. At about the same time, Mr X contacted another local Councillor, Councillor C. Mr X told Councillor C that Councillor A had not made reasonable adjustments and had not contacted Mr X or arranged a meeting with him. Councillor C told Mr X they would forward his name and telephone number to Councillor A and would ask them to contact Mr X as soon as possible.
41. Mr X says he contacted Councillor C again in October 2023 to let them know Councillor A had not contacted him.
42. In mid-October 2023, Mx B emailed Councillor A again. They said Mr X was distressed as he had still not heard from Councillor A. Mx B told Councillor A that Mr X could not send emails. They asked Councillor A to make adjustments and for them to contact Mr X.
43. In late October 2023, Councillor A contacted the Council and passed on the concerns and issues raised by Mx B.
44. The Council acknowledged receipt of Councillor A’s contact. It notified Councillor A and Mx B that it had raised the matter as a Member’s Enquiry. Mx B acknowledged the notification and asked the Council to send the Member’s Enquiry response to Mr X in writing.
45. In mid-November 2023, the Council provided its Member’s Enquiry response to Mx B and Councillor A. It said the Council had regularly enforced parking restrictions in the road where Mr X lived and had issued 28 PCNs in the preceding six-week period. The Council said it had also deployed removal trucks to add to the deterrence. The Council said it could not begin to remove any vehicles in contravention before 30 minutes had elapsed from the time a PCN was issued. The Council acknowledged the impact to Mr X regarding vehicles parked across the dropped kerb. It said however, there were limits to how it could apply a fair and proportionate approach to its enforcement action. The Council said a possible solution may be for the Highways Team to investigate the possibility of installing a build-out on either side of the dropped kerb to prevent drivers from blocking it.
46. Mx B replied to the Council on the same day. They said the Member’s Enquiry response was not acceptable and asked why the Council had not done something if it knew there was a problem. Mx B said Mr X should not be held prisoner in his own home and should not be prevented from accessing it because he is a wheelchair user.
47. Mr X says Mx B contacted him on 20 November 2023 to discuss the Member’s Enquiry response. Mr X says prior to this, he was unaware the Council had raised a Member’s Enquiry as a result of Mx B’s contact. Mr X says he tried to raise a Member’s conduct complaint at this time because he was upset that a Member’s Enquiry had taken place without his consent, and because Councillor A had not contacted him. However, Mr X says he was unable to make this complaint because the Council did not make reasonable adjustments for him to raise the complaint verbally.
48. Mr X says he contacted Councillor A’s political party to raise his complaint. Mr X says the party passed on details of his complaint to the Monitoring Officer as well as Mr X’s request for reasonable adjustments.
49. Mr X received a voicemail from the office of the Monitoring Officer advising him that the office has no telephone number on which it could be contacted. The voicemail asked Mr X to contact the Monitoring Officer by email.

What happened next

50. In February 2024, Mr X called the Council again to complain about vehicles parked across the dropped kerb. Mr X’s carer kept a record of this contact on behalf of Mr X. Mr X told the officer who took his call that he was unable to talk on the telephone for longer than 10 minutes due to his disability. Mr X asked the Council to conduct an online meeting with him so he could submit his complaint verbally. Mr X says the officer told him he must complete an online complaint form instead.
51. On the same day, shortly after speaking with the Council, Mr X called a solicitor regarding his complaint request. Mr X says a Council officer arrived at Mr X’s location with a CEO while Mr X was talking to the solicitor on the telephone. Mr X says the officer spoke to the solicitor and confirmed that all complaints must be made via the online form.
52. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought his complaint to us. He says the Council has failed to take his complaints fully as it did not provide him with reasonable adjustments to submit his complaints verbally.

Analysis - Mr X complained the Council did not take appropriate action regarding the vehicles parked across the dropped curb.

53. Mr X says the Council did not take appropriate action regarding vehicles parked across the dropped curb and/or double yellow lines next to his disabled parking bay. Mr X says the dropped curb was installed specifically for wheelchair users living at the address. He says wheelchair users cannot cross the street if the dropped curb is blocked.
54. The Council says the dropped kerb is not a designated disabled access dropped kerb. The Council says it is a sloped area facilitating vehicle crossover from the road to a private driveway or off-street parking area. The Council acknowledges there is a history of a recurrent obstruction of the dropped kerb and says it has responded many times to requests from Mr X. It says it has taken appropriate action where applicable in response to vehicles parked across the dropped kerb.
55. The Council says it increased visits to the site from its CEOs in response to the issues raised by Mr X. It says this included carrying out night patrols to ensure any vehicles found in contravention were either issued with a PCN or moved on. The Council says during the period January 2023 to July 2024, it issued 17 PCNs to vehicles parked on yellow lines where part of the vehicle blocked the dropped kerb in question.
56. The Council says the ideal solution would be to prevent any vehicle from obstructing the area. It says however, there are practical limitations to this solution. The Council says it has a limited number of officers in the Parking Enforcement Team and it is not feasible or a reasonable use of public finances to station an officer permanently at the location. The Council says this would also not comply with the Traffic Management Act 2004 or the associated parking regulations.
57. I acknowledge the comments made by Mr X and the Council and have considered the evidence provided by both parties.
58. The Council has provided records of the visits made, and of the PCN’s issued to vehicles in the road where Mr X’s previous address is located. The records confirm the number of visits and PCNs issued for the period stated. The records also show the Council carried out these visits at varying times of the day and night. The Council’s records also show it issued multiple PCNs to the same vehicle during this period.
59. However, the evidence shows the Council did not issue any PCNs for the contravention of parking across the dropped kerb, or for parking on yellow lines adjacent to the dropped kerb, from early December 2023 to late June 2024.
60. On the balance of probabilities, it is more likely than not that vehicles continued to park on the yellow lines and/or across the dropped kerb during this period. This is because the evidence shows multiple ongoing recorded contraventions of this type for the period March 2023 to December 2023. I have seen no evidence to suggest anything changed which would have prevented further such contraventions for the period December 2023 to June 2024. In addition, Mr X says the issue of cars parking across the dropped kerb was continuous for the period he lived at the address.
61. Based on the information received, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not take enforcement action against vehicles parked across the dropped kerb for at least some of the time Mr X was living at his previous address. This is because the Council carried out visits to the location but did not issue any PCNs from December 2023 to June 2024.
62. I acknowledge that enforcement action is discretionary, but the Council was aware of Mr X’s concerns regarding this matter and was aware of the impact to Mr X of the dropped kerb being blocked. The Council has not provided evidence to demonstrate why it did not issue any PCNs from December 2023 to June 2024 despite knowing the recurring parking issues and the impact to Mr X. Therefore, the Council has not demonstrated it did always take appropriate action regarding parking enforcement. As a result, the Council is at fault regarding this aspect of the complaint.

The Council’s correspondence to Mr X

63. The Council provided flawed explanations to Mr X in response to the concerns he raised. This is because the Member’s Enquiry response stated the Council could not remove any vehicles in contravention before 30 minutes had elapsed from the time it issued a PCN. This is not in line with the London Councils Code of Practice. The Code of Practice states vehicles identified as persistent evaders that are not parked in a parking place, may be removed immediately after the issue of a PCN.
64. In addition, the record of the conversation between Mr X and the Council in September 2023 indicates an officer told Mr X it did not matter about the dropped kerb, as drivers could park for 20 minutes to load or unload their vehicle. This is not in line with the Council’s website which states that parking in front of a dropped kerb for a footway is not allowed at any time. The Council’s explanation to Mr X is also not in line with the Traffic Management Act 2004.
65. The flawed explanations to Mr X are fault causing avoidable frustration and distress to Mr X. This is because the nature of Mr X’s complaint was that vehicles were not permitted to park across the dropped kerb, and that the Council was not taking appropriate action to deal with persistent contraventions.

Mr X complained the Council did not take appropriate action to address the ongoing parking issues, despite a Member’s Enquiry response suggesting it would consider further measures.

66. The Council says it took appropriate action within the scope of parking enforcement. It says in response to the ongoing issues, it increased visits to the area to address parking violations.
67. The Council says its Parking Enforcement Team's responsibilities are limited to enforcing parking regulations. It says any structural changes, such as redesigning the street or installing build-out structures, fall outside the remit of the Parking Enforcement Team. The Council says its other departments, such as the Highways or Parking Development Teams, can address these matters.
68. I acknowledge the Council’s response regarding the remit of the Parking Enforcement Team. However, we expect Councils to employ joined-up working, whereby services communicate openly with each other. As a result, and given the Member’s Enquiry response suggested a build-out as a possible solution, we would expect the Parking Enforcement Team to communicate with the relevant service, such as the Highways Team, to consider this option.
69. The Council says in response to the concerns raised, a recommendation and/or suggestion was made in the Member’s Enquiry response to the relevant service area for their consideration.
70. As part of my enquiries, I asked the Council to provide evidence of how it considered the option of a build out, and any other potential measures it considered to prevent vehicles parking across the dropped kerb.
71. The Council has provided a response from its Highways Team. This is an email which states build outs prevent vehicles parking across existing dropped kerbs in specific scenarios only. It says build outs require unobstructed carriageway width to be maintained, as well as turning movements which do not force the turning vehicle on to the opposite side of the carriageway into oncoming traffic. The Highways Team says there is another dropped kerb opposite the development, to facilitate vehicle movements on to the road where Mr X lived. It says if the carriageway width is reduced, this would create potential for conflict. As a result, the Highways Team says installing a build-out in this instance would not prevent the parking issues reported by Mr X.
72. The above email does not show a correct date to demonstrate when the Highways Team considered the option of a build out; instead, it has reverted to a default date. I acknowledge the Council says a recommendation and/or suggestion was made in the Member’s Enquiry response to the relevant service area for their consideration. However, the evidence provided does not show the Highways Team considered this matter as a result of the Member’s Enquiry, and it does not show when the consideration was made.
73. I acknowledge the reasons as stated by the Highways Team as to why it considers a build out is not appropriate in this instance. However, the only evidence provided to show the Highways Team considered this matter is the undated email.
74. I have seen no evidence the Council provided Mr X with an update regarding the possible solution as referred to in the Member’s Enquiry response, or why it considered the option of a build out is not appropriate. The Council’s lack of response to Mr X regarding how it considered what further measures may or may not be appropriate is fault. This is because Mr X made ongoing complaints about parking, and discussed his concerns with the Parking Enforcement Team, who said it would get back to Mr X after speaking with the Parking Development Team.
75. I acknowledge the Council’s Highways Team considers a build out is not appropriate. However, the fault identified caused an injustice to Mr X, namely the uncertainty and frustration at the Council’s apparent lack of action/update to address the ongoing parking issues.

Mr X complained the Council did not respond to contact from the Police regarding the parking issue.

76. Mr X says following his report to the Police, the Police contacted the Council regarding the parking issues. Mr X complained the Council did not respond.
77. The Council says it has reviewed its records and found no contact to the Parking Enforcement Team from the Police regarding parking issues in the area.
78. Mr X provided a witness statement to the Police following his report of the incident with the owner of the car who Mr X said repeatedly parked across the dropped kerb. This document states the officer in charge submitted a parking enforcement request form to the Council in July 2023. The document shows a corresponding reference number regarding the request.
79. Records dated September 2023, maintained on behalf of Mr X by his carer, state the Police had written to the Council but had not heard back.
80. The Police emailed Mr X in December 2023 advising him they had tried unsuccessfully to call the Parking Enforcement Team. The Police asked Mr X to forward his email correspondence with the Council to them, so they could try to make contact themselves.
81. I acknowledge the Council’s comments that it has found no record of contact from the Police. However, on the balance of probability, the evidence indicates the Police did contact the Council regarding this matter. This is because the witness statement shows an update stating the officer in charge submitted a parking enforcement request to the Council. This detail has been added as an update by the officer in charge, with a reference number relating to the update. As the officer in charge updated a Police document with a dated reference number, stating they had contacted the Council, it is more likely than not this contact took place.
82. In addition, the email from the Police in December 2023 shows a Police officer requested information from Mr X so they could contact the Council directly.
83. The principles of good administrative practice, as referred to in paragraph 29 above, include an expectation that bodies in jurisdiction keep proper and appropriate records. This includes keeping records of contact from other professional bodies, such as the Police. The Council’s lack of records regarding the contact from the Police is not in line with the principles of good administrative practice. This is fault.

Mr X complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for him to make his complaint.

84. Mr X says the Council did not take his complaints verbally and instead directed him to its online complaint form.
85. The Council’s complaints policy says its officers should offer assistance to anyone who might have difficulties in writing their complaint. The policy states service users can submit complaints by webform, email, telephone or by letter.
86. In its response to our enquiries, the Council says its parking control room officers are not trained to handle formal complaints. It says Mr X was appropriately signposted to the Council’s formal complaint channel. The Council acknowledges however, that considering Mr X’s request for reasonable adjustments, it should have been more accommodating to him. The Council says ideally, its officers should have transferred Mr X’s call to the Council’s Customer Contact Centre, where trained staff are available to assist in documenting and processing complaints.
87. The Council’s complaints policy is clear in stating officers should offer assistance to anyone who might have difficulties in writing their complaint. In addition, the policy states service users may submit their complaints by telephone. The evidence shows the Council did not follow its complaints policy when Mr X called to make a complaint. This is fault. The injustice to Mr X is the avoidable frustration and distress caused by the Council’s failure to accept his complaints verbally. This also incurred time and trouble to Mr X in bringing his complaints to the Ombudsman.

Mr X complained a Councillor failed to respond to texts and emails sent on his behalf. Mr X also complained the Councillor carried out a Member’s Enquiry without speaking to him, and complained the response was provided to his advocate instead of directly to him.

88. The Council says it has no records of any complaints about this matter. However, it says if Mr X made contact using the email or telephone details published on the Councillor’s website, and this was ignored, it would likely be grounds for a complaint.
89. Mr X says he did not provide his consent to Mx B for them to contact Councillor A on his behalf. He says he was unaware of the Member’s Enquiry until late November 2023 when Mx B contacted him to discuss the Council’s response.
90. The evidence shows:
• Mr X asked Councillor A to call him to discuss his concerns. Mx B also contacted Councillor A and asked them to make adjustments to contact Mr X, as he could not send emails;
• Councillor A referred the concerns raised via Mx B to the Council, but did not speak to Mr X or provide the Council with his consent;
• The Council raised the matter as a Member’s Enquiry, without being provided with Mr X’s consent in the initial contact;
• The Monitoring Officer’s office did not provide reasonable adjustments for Mr X to give information verbally; instead, it asked Mr X to contact it by email.
91. Under the Equality Act 2010, the Council has a duty to make reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities to be able to access services. The failure to make reasonable adjustments so Mr X could speak to Councillor A regarding his concerns, and the failure to make reasonable adjustments by the Monitoring Officer’s office is fault.
92. In addition, the Council did not adhere to its Member’s Enquiry policy, as this requires the initial contact by the Member to include the resident’s consent. I acknowledge the policy states that generally, Member’s have implied consent from the resident. However, the email from Mx B to Councillor A referred to their role as an “unofficial” advocate for some residents. It referred to Mr X’s concerns in the context of being one of the residents, without stating they were acting on Mr X’s behalf with his consent. The failure to adhere to the Council’s policy regarding this matter is fault.
93. Having reviewed the Member’s Enquiry policy, it does not address how some service users may require reasonable adjustments when raising concerns with Members. The policy states residents must provide an email address and does not acknowledge this method of contact may not be suitable for everyone. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires equality considerations to be reflected into the design of policies and the delivery of services. This includes internal policies, and for these to be kept under review.

Back to top

Agreed action

94. Following a recent previous investigation regarding a separate complaint by Mr X, the Council agreed to provide an action plan showing how it will corporately record, assess, make decisions and deliver reasonable adjustments requested by its service users. The Council also agreed to refer the action plan to its Overview and Scrutiny Committee. As a result, I have not made further recommendations regarding how the Council considers and handles requests for reasonable adjustments as part of this investigation.
95. However, to address the injustice identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:
1. Provide an apology to Mr X for the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
2. Make a symbolic payment of £300 in recognition of the frustration and distress caused;
3. Make a further symbolic payment of £100 in recognition of the time and trouble incurred;
4. Remind staff the Council’s website states parking in front of a dropped kerb for a footway is not allowed at any time;
5. Remind staff the London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement says vehicles identified as persistent evaders that are not parked in a parking place, may be removed immediately after the issue of a Penalty Charge Notice.
6. Remind staff the Council’s complaints policy states officers should offer assistance to anyone who might have difficulties in writing their complaint, and that complaints can be submitted by webform, email, telephone or by letter;
7. Remind staff of the importance of keeping proper and appropriate records, including details of contacts from other professional bodies;
8. Share this decision with Members and remind Members and Council staff of the Council’s duty to consider reasonable adjustments when people with disabilities request adjustments to enable them to access services, and
9. Remind Members of the need to include the resident’s consent in the initial contact when making a Member’s Enquiry.
96. The Council has also agreed to take the following additional action within three months of the final decision:
1. Review the Member’s Enquiry policy with regard to the Equality Act 2010 and Public Sector Equality Duty, to include details of how service users can request reasonable adjustments, and how the Council will consider these requests.
97. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

98. I have found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to take the above action to resolve the complaint. I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman