Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant does not qualify for a Disabled Tax Exempt Vehicle permit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision that he is not eligible for a Disabled Tax Exempt Vehicle permit (DTEV). He says the rules are too restrictive and out of line with other councils. Mr X says the Council needs to reassess the qualifying rules.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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 Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence, information about tax exemptions and the report presented to the Council Cabinet in 2019. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council agreed the DTEV policy in 2019. The Council decided people would qualify for a DTEV permit if their vehicle was tax exempt or the person receives PIP at the enhanced rate for mobility (this means scoring at least 12 points for mobility). The report presented to Cabinet said people would not qualify if their vehicle qualified for a tax reduction rather than a tax exemption. People who receive PIP at the standard mobility rate qualify for a 50% reduction on their car tax.
6. Mr X applied for a DTEV permit. He receives PIP mobility at the standard rate and his car tax is reduced by 50%. The Council refused the application because Mr X does not meet the qualifying conditions.
7. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. He satisfies the rules for a Blue Badge and says his 10 PIP points demonstrate he has a recognised need for help with his mobility. He says other councils have less restrictive rules and the 50% reduction on his car tax should be enough to demonstrate he qualifies for the permit.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X’s car is not exempt from car tax and the decision made by the Council in 2019 specifically excluded people who receive a car tax reduction. In addition, Mr X does not receive the enhanced mobility rate of PIP. The Council’s decision reflects the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.
9. Mr X has referred to his Blue Badge but the qualifying rules for a badge are different to the rules for a DTEV permit. And, while other councils may have different rules, it is for each council to set the qualifying criteria for that council. Mr X thinks the Council’s rules are too restrictive but we cannot change the rules. If Mr X thinks the Council should change the qualifying conditions then that is something he would need to raise with the Council and ask for the policy to be changed. It would be for the Council to decide whether to change the rules and there is no guarantee it would agree to make any changes suggested by Mr X.
10. We do not act as an appeal body and we cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman