Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue Mr X with a blue badge. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider his health conditions and the impact they have on his ability to walk when it rejected his blue badge application.
2. Mr X complained he has been put to stress and inconvenience by the Council’s actions.

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.
  (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Blue badges allow the holder to park closer to their destination and reduce their walking distance. Eligible applicants for a blue badge must be assessed as being unable to walk and/or experience very considerable difficulty or be at risk of serious harm when walking.
8. Mr X applied to the Council for a blue badge because he has several health conditions which affect his breathing and mobility. The Council carried out a telephone and physical assessment of Mr X. The assessor observed Mr X walking for a moderate distance and noted that whilst Mr X had difficulty breathing his walking was not significantly affected by this. The Council consequently rejected Mr X’s blue badge application.
9. Mr X appealed the decision and provided information from his doctor in support of his application. The Council considered the information but maintained its decision that Mr X was not eligible for a blue badge.
10. Mr X remains unhappy with the Council's decision and wants us to find it at fault. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits or outcome of a Council’s decision as long as it has made the decision correctly. The evidence shows the Council has considered Mr X’s health conditions and carried out assessments of his walking. The Council has decided Mr X does not meet the criteria for a blue badge and it is entitled to make this decision as there is no evidence of fault in its consideration of Mr X’s application.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman