Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his blue badge application. He says the Council failed to follow the Department of Transport’s blue badge guidance when it considered his application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. In addition, there is no ongoing significant injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his blue badge application. He says the Council failed to follow the Department of Transport’s blue badge guidance when it considered his application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Department of Transport (DfT) has issued blue badge guidance around determining the eligibility of applicants. This section notes that people may be issued with a badge after further assessment are those who are more than three years old and may be described as:
• A person who has been certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring and substantial disability which causes them, during the course of a journey, to be unable to walk, experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress.
7. It goes on to note that persons needed such certification are those in whose case the local authority does not consider it self-evident that they fall within the above descriptor. If it is not self-evident to the local authority on the basis of the information available to them, from the applicant and health or social care practitioners, whether the applicant falls within the descriptor, then a referral should be made to an expert assessor for certification.
8. The Council sent Mr X’s blude badge application and supporting evidence to its independent expert assessor to consider. The Council confirmed its independent assessor reviewed the information provided by the Council and this formed the basis of their assessment.
9. While I note Mr X is not happy with the Council’s choice of assessor, it is for the Council to decide what contractor it will use. The Council has evidence it sent Mr X’s information to an expert assessor for review. This action was in line with the DfT’s blue badge guidance.
10. As the Council made its decision properly, we cannot find fault with the decision itself. Therefore, an investigation is not justified.
11. In addition, the Council has confirmed Mr X has been awarded a blue badge by another council. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as there is no ongoing significant injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. In addition, there is no ongoing significant injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman