Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

London Borough of Newham (21 002 670)

Category : Adult care services > Transport

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 03 Oct 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr B’s complaint that the Council refused him a disabled parking badge. The Council has now issued him a badge, so he is no longer suffering any injustice.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council refused his application for a disabled parking badge (blue badge). He says the Council did not properly take his medical evidence into account.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information from Mr B and the Council. Both parties had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr B complained to us in May 2021, saying the Council had refused his blue badge application. He described his physical conditions and said they cause him severe pain and, consequently, great difficulty walking. He said the Council failed to consider his medical evidence and made the wrong decision.
  2. In July the Council reconsidered Mr B’s application and decided the evidence he provided did, in fact, justify a blue badge. However, it says it has not seen evidence that his condition is long-term, so it has issued the badge for one year instead of the usual three.
  3. This means Mr B is no longer suffering any injustice from the Council’s original refusal and it would not be proportionate to continue with my investigation.
  4. If, in July 2022, the Council decides Mr B should no longer have a blue badge,
    Mr B can challenge that decision and approach the Ombudsman again if he wishes.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have discontinued my investigation. The Council has now issued a blue badge to Mr B, so he is no longer suffering any injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page