London Borough of Lambeth (23 004 582)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject Mr X’s blue badge application. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.
The complaint
- Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to reject his blue badge application.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Mr X made an application for a blue badge. The Council declined Mr X’s application on the basis Mr X had not provided any medical evidence to support Mr X’s claims of seizures.
- If we investigated this complaint, it is likely we would find fault causing Mr X injustice. This is because Mr X has provided medical evidence from his doctor which details he experiences episodic psychological distress and dizzy spells which affect his mobility. It further notes Mr X has a history of functional seizures.
- While the assessor noted this evidence within their assessment document, there is no rationale provided as to why this evidence was not sufficient for Mr X to meet the eligibility criteria as outlined in paragraph 4.26 of the Department of Transport’s Blue Badge scheme local authority guidance:
- 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.
- In addition, they may be at risk of serious harm when walking – or pose, when walking, a serious risk of harm to any other person.
- We therefore asked to the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused by completing a new assessment. The new assessment should show clear consideration of the evidence from Mr X’s doctor and a clear rationale as to why Mr X does not meet the eligibility criteria set out above.
Agreed action
- To its credit, the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint and will complete the above within four weeks of the final decision.
Final decision
- We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman