Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with an application to renew his Blue Badge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant personal injustice. It is also unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add anything to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council dealt with his Blue Badge renewal.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 we believe:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the Information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X has complained to the Council about the difficulties he experienced when trying to renew his Blue Badge. His complaints to the Council included:
• The Council asking for a copy of a utility bill – despite the fact he had already sent this information with his original renewal application.
• The Council asking for further proof of his identity - despite Mr X sending a copy of his Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessment.
• Difficulties in contacting the Blue Badge team.
• Failing to respond to his complaints and mistakes in the responses he did receive.
5. Mr X says he had to make a special journey to take the Council a copy of a utility bill he had already sent. Mr X asked the Council for compensation.
6. In its responses to Mr X’s complaints the Council said:
• Its staff had not realised the utility bill was at the end of the PIP assessment Mr X had sent the Council.
• The PIP assessment Mr X had sent was more than three months old so the Council could not use it as proof of Mr X’s address.
• As part of one of its complaint responses, the Council had wrongly said when it received Mr X’s original renewal application.
• Staff absence and problems with its computer system meant there were problems with the Blue Badge helpline – this meant council staff could not transfer calls.
• The Blue Badge helpline was now working, and the Council would be introducing a new computer system to help the public apply for Blue Badges.
7. The Council said it was sorry it did not notice Mr X had sent a utility bill with his original application. It also apologised that he found it difficult to contact the Council and had to make an unnecessary journey. But the Council said it could not agree to his request for compensation.
8. In deciding whether to investigate a complaint, the Ombudsman needs to consider various tests. These include the likelihood of finding fault and the injustice caused to the person complaining. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive and only look at those we consider the most serious. Before deciding whether to investigate, we also need to consider what we can achieve for the person complaining.
9. I understand Mr X’s frustrations with the service he received from the Council. Mr X says that if the Council had offered a payment for his time and trouble, he would have not pursued his complaint.
10. The Council has accepted mistakes were made, apologised, and has explained what it has done to try and avoid the same mistakes happening again. Mr X was never without his Blue Badge – although this was potentially only due to the extra journey he made. The Council has decided a compensation payment is not appropriate.
11. While sympathetic to Mr X’s situation, I do not believe the injustice caused to Mr X is significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. On balance, I do not think an investigation would achieve anything more for Mr X. An investigation by the Ombudsman is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant personal injustice. It is also unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add anything to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman