We recently had a case which we thought was a fantastic example of how good communication with all parties can lead to an early resolution. This example demonstrates that significant outcomes can be achieved for complainants without the need for long or detailed investigation.
In this case, the complainant was refused a disabled parking space. There were two elements to the decision, automatic criteria and a discretionary element if the automatic criteria were not met. The complainant did not meet the automatic criteria so the Council applied their discretion ultimately deciding that the complainant did not need the disabled parking space.
The complainant, who has a disability, felt that they were declined the parking space because of circumstances associated with their disability. SPSO asked the Council for clarity around the legislation they were making the decision under and the criteria they had in place.
Once we had reviewed what they sent, we were of the view that the Council had misunderstood their responsibilities and powers given by the Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Act 2009.
In our view, the Council had conflated part of the legislation and that the complainant did indeed meet the qualifying criteria for a disabled parking space. Specifically, we found that the Council has misunderstood their powers to determine what constituted a ‘qualifying person’ in these circumstances.
We spoke to the Council about our views. They considered our comments and acknowledged the wording of their policy should be clarified to reflect the position we had suggested. They said that as well as amending their policy, they would apologise to the complainant and reconsider their application for a disabled parking bay.
We were ultimately able to close this case as resolved without the need for a potentially lengthy investigation. We are delighted that the Council has promised to take steps to put things right, and equally, that the complainant is happy with the outcome we were able to facilitate for them.