Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to renew the complainant’s Blue Badge due to alleged mis-use. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains about the Council’s decision not to renew her Blue Badge. Mrs X denies the Council’s allegation that she has allowed her badge to be mis-used.

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 an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and evidence provided by Mrs X and by the Council. I considered comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Blue badge

5. The law says a council can decide not to issue a Blue Badge if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant would allow someone else to use it.

What happened

6. Mrs X has had a Blue Badge for many years. The Council wrote to Mrs X in July 2014 to warn of possible mis-use and that someone else had been seen using the badge. Mrs X replied saying it was a malicious report.
7. In October 2014 the Council wrote to Mrs X to say it had received several reports, from different people, saying the badge was being mis-used. The Council said it would monitor the situation. In response Mrs X denied any misuse and said it was linked to a neighbour dispute.
8. The Council issued a PCN for badge mis-use in 2014. Mrs X’s husband denied the offence and explained the family uses the badge correctly.
9. The Council issued a warning letter in March 2017 regarding mis-use of the badge. The Council said it was aware Mrs X had previously reported neighbour problems and had taken this into account. In response Mrs X denied any mis-use and again referred to the neighbour problems.
10. In October 2017 a different council issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to an ex-partner (Mr Y) for mis-using the badge. Mr Y challenging the PCN and said he had been helping Mrs X with errands. The different council rejected the challenge and said the enforcement officer had not seen Mrs X. The PCN was subsequently paid. In subsequent letters the Council said it was Mr Y who paid the PCN. Mrs X says Mr Y’s employer automatically pays all PCNs and he had no chance to appeal.
11. In March 2018 the Council sent a warning letter to Mrs X. It said it had received reports of a van repeatedly being seen displaying the badge and, while enforcement officers had seen a male getting in and out, they had not seen Mrs X. The letter said the Council would not issue another badge because it had a good reason to think Mrs X was not using the badge correctly.
12. Mrs X’s badge expired in March 2019. She reapplied in late May. In July the Council decided not to renew the badge.
13. Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision. She says the reports are malicious and linked to neighbour problems. She denies all mis-use and says Mr Y could not appeal as his employer pays PCNs. She says she is reliant on the badge due to her disability. She says the Council made many errors including sending a letter with the wrong date and never witnessing any misuse.

Assessment

14. It is not my role to act an appeal body or to decide if Mrs X has been using the badge correctly. I can only consider if there has been fault by the Council in the way it considered events in relation to the regulations.
15. The regulations say a council can refuse to issue a badge if it has reasonable grounds to think someone will mis-sue it. The rules refer to reasonable grounds – they do not refer to evidence ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ or ‘on the balance of probabilities’. The Council received reports of mis-use in 2014, 2017 and 2018 and two PCNs have been issued for alleged mis-use. Mrs X denies all the allegations, and questions the Council’s findings, but the body of evidence shows the Council had reasonable grounds to think a badge might be mis-used so there is no reason to start an investigation. In addition, the Council did not withdraw the badge until 2019 and in its earlier correspondence it referred to being aware of the problems Mrs X had reported with her neighbours. This shows the Council was considering the points Mrs X had made.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman