Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s processing of his blue badge application, its decision to refuse it, and the delay in determining it. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council which affected the blue badge decision to warrant investigation. The Council has apologised to Mr X for the time taken to decide his application and there is no different outcome an investigation would achieve on this issue.

The complaint

1. Mr X has medical conditions which affect his mobility and breathing. He applied to the Council for a blue parking badge. Mr X complains the Council:
1. incorrectly refused to issue him with a blue badge;
2. effectively ignored the medical evidence he provided in support of his application;
3. conducted a flawed mobility assessment on him;
4. delayed dealing with his application for about six months.
2. Mr X says the delay in the process and how it was conducted caused him distress. He wants the Council to issue him with a blue badge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

4. 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

5. I considered information from Mr X, blue badge scheme guidance and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We consider the process a council has used to make its decision. We may only criticise a council decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process, and but for that fault there would have been a different outcome.
7. Mr X says the Council ignored the medical information he provided with his application. The Council’s responses to his complaint show officers took account of the information he provided. It was after their consideration of his application and supporting documents that officers invited Mr X to a face-to-face assessment. Officers took the view after considering the information that he may be eligible for a blue badge, subject to further assessment. That is a decision in line with the national blue badge guidance and one the officers were entitled to make.
8. The Council’s responses to Mr X provide information from the assessor’s report. The assessor noted Mr X’s actions at the assessment, including the distance he walked and the time taken, the impact of the walk on his breathing and levels of reported pain. Based on the information gathered at the assessment, the assessor took the view that Mr X’s mobility and conditions did not mean he experienced very considerable difficulty when walking, which was the high threshold set for blue badge eligibility here. The assessor, in line with the national guidance, decided Mr X did not qualify for a blue badge.
9. I note Mr X considers the face-to-face assessment was flawed. But there is not enough evidence of fault in the way it was conducted, in line with the guidance, to warrant us investigating. I recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision on his application. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. There was delay by the Council in determining Mr X’s blue badge application. But the Council’s decision to refuse the badge means this did not result in a significant personal injustice to Mr X, such as a delay in him receiving a badge. The Council has apologised to Mr X for the delay. This is the kind of outcome we would seek for this part of the complaint had we investigated. There is no different outcome on this issue which we would achieve for Mr X by investigating so we will not do so.
11. The Council’s decision on this blue badge application does not prevent Mr X from re-applying. If his mobility deteriorates, he may wish to submit a fresh application along with new relevant medical evidence for the Council’s consideration.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s blue badge process which would have affected the decision to warrant investigation; and
• there is no different outcome to be achieved from investigation of the delay in deciding his blue badge application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman