Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s failure to communicate effectively with her regarding a blue badge application. This is because the Council has acknowledged the response she received was inadequate apologised and explained it has amended its customer care procedures when dealing with blue badge applications. The Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies the injustice caused to Ms B.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains about the way the Council responded to her about her blue badge application. Ms B says by law the Council must supply unsuccessful blue badge applicants details of the decisions and why they are unsuccessful. Ms B wants assurances from the Council it will supply these details to other applicants to minimise them having to appeal the process.

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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information and documentation Ms B and the Council provided. I sent Ms B a copy of my draft decision and considered her comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms B was unhappy with the responses she received to her complaints about the way the Council had communicated its decision not to award her a blue badge. Ms B complained the Council had not considered the impact her physical disabilities have on her mental health.
5. The Council investigated Ms B’s concerns at stage one and two of its complaints procedures. It said its decision to refuse her a blue badge was correct, however, it acknowledged the responses and explanations she had received did not include the nature of her hidden disability that is, her walking difficulties caused her considerable psychological distress. It apologised for the failure to communicate effectively and advised staff have received further training to address the quality of customer care. The Ombudsman is satisfied and apology and further staff training remedies the injustice cause to Ms B from the Council’s failure to properly communicate with her about its decision not to award her a blue badge.
6. The Council responded to Ms B’s request for an explanation why her application had been refused on 30 July. It said:

You applied under ‘walking difficulties’ and your application has been considered against the national eligibility criteria for walking difficulties.

From your application:

o You state you can walk from [from one distance to another] in 4 minutes: this is 160m in 4 minutes, this is the equivalent of 40m/minute

o You state that on a typical day you can walk 1/3 mile (536m) in 10-15 minutes, this is the equivalent of an average of 44.5m/minute

o You state that on some days you can walk 1 mile (1609m) in about 50 minutes

o You state that you achieve this by taking rests and using over the counter pain relief

o You state you can walk around a supermarket using a trolley

o You state you can walk up and down stairs using a handrail

o You state you have been provided with orthotics to help make walking easier and mitigate balance difficulties

o You state you have received physiotherapy input to address your pain and walking difficulties

Unfortunately, the information you have provided about your walking difficulties does not indicate your eligibility under the Government’s guidance for Blue Badges.

However, I note from your application your mention of the distress you sometimes encounter during the course of a journey.

In the letter you received from us declining your application, there was the option to request a review of our decision. I have now passed your application to an Occupational Therapist to complete a clinical review of your application and the distress you mention will be taken into consideration in their review.   

7. The Council explained an Occupational Therapist (OT) reviewed Ms B’s application and requested further supporting evidence from her to be able to reach an outcome on her blue badge application. Ms B will receive a formal outcome to her application when the Council has received all supporting documentation and reached its decision.
8. Ms B says the Ombudsman should investigate her concerns because the Council is not providing people with correct detailed information when refusing blue badge applications. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The Ombudsman is satisfied any injustice caused to Ms B from the actions of the Council has been remedied.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has acknowledged the response was inadequate apologised and explained it has amended its customer care procedures when dealing with blue badge applications. The Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies the injustice caused to Ms B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman