Sheffield City Council (19 005 109)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Q’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of her blue badge application. The Council has now renewed her blue badge. This is a fair remedy.
The complaint
- The complainant, who I have called Miss Q, complained about Sheffield City Council’s assessment of her blue badge application, which it initially refused.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if the Council has provided a fair remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered the information Miss Q and the Council provided.
What I found
Key facts
- Miss Q had a blue badge for her car. She applied to renew her badge. The Council refused to renew her badge and upheld this decision when she appealed.
- Miss Q provided further evidence in support of her application. The Council later decided there had been an administrative error. It wrote to Miss Q saying her application had been successful.
Analysis
- The Council said there was an administrative error in its handling of Miss Q’s application to renew her blue badge. It has now approved her application. This is a fair remedy and so we will not investigate the complaint for this reason.
Final decision
- We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a fair remedy.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman