London Borough of Islington (23 000 539)

Category : Adult care services > Transport

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 21 Jun 2023

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a blue badge application because the complaint is late with no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate now and it is unlikely we would find fault.

The complaint

  1. Ms Y complained the Council has repeatedly refused her application for a blue badge despite her having provided evidence of her disability and have insisted she should attend an in-person assessment. She also complained about the time taken in the process overall since 2019.
  2. Ms Y says she has suffered distress as a result and feels unfairly treated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
  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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information Ms Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Ms Y has applied to the Council for a blue badge several times between June 2019 and October 2022. The applications made between 2019 and 2021 were decided more than 12 months ago. This means Ms Y knew of her reason to complain about the handling, alleged delay, and decisions of those applications more than 12 months ago. These complaints are therefore late. As there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate these late complaints, we will not investigate these applications further.
  2. Ms Y did however make a further application in October 2022, which was less than 12 months ago, and is therefore not late. Following her complaint, the Council gave its final response in March 2023. In it the Council explained how Ms Y did not meet the criteria to be eligible for a blue badge without a further assessment.
  3. The Council’s response explained it had considered information such as the points awarded for Personal Independence Payments, as required by the criteria to make this decision. It also considered Ms Y’s medical information but found that this was insufficient for it to decide that it was self-evident that Ms Y met the criteria without a mobility assessment.
  4. In each of the applications Ms Y has been asked to attend mobility assessments but has not attended when these have been offered. As the Council did not therefore have sufficient information to ensure Ms Y met the eligibility criteria, the application was refused.
  5. 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. As the Council properly considered the information provided, against relevant criteria, and found that it was insufficient to determine Ms Y’s application in its professional judgement without a mobility assessment, it is unlikely we would find fault in it inviting Ms Y to attend an assessment to gather further information.
  6. Further, as Ms Y decided not to attend these assessments, which meant the Council did not have sufficient evidence to show Ms Y met the criteria for a blue badge award in its decision-making process, it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision not to award Ms Y with a blue badge. Consequently, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint because the complaint is late with no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate now, and it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

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.

Privacy settings