Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a blue badge application as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to properly consider his blue badge application as the assessor was not appropriate for Mr Y’s condition and the method used to assess Mr Y’s application was not appropriate, such as the Council’s poor consideration of Mr Y’s falls history, his manner of walking on different surfaces and the impact of his condition.
2. Mr Y says the methodology used was not consistent with the Equality Act and has left him unable to leave his home as he cannot park near to shops and other amenities.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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 continue 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y applied for a blue badge on the grounds of a medical condition. The Council declined the application as it considered, following assessment, that Mr Y could walk further that the required distance, as referred to in medical evidence Mr Y had provided to the Council, and did not find he met the threshold of having very considerable difficulty whilst walking. Mr Y appealed the Council’s decision, but this was again rejected. He then complained.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. That means we will not take another look at a decision and come to our own conclusions. Instead, we look at the process the Council followed when it made its decision. If we consider it followed these processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
8. The Council considered the information and evidence Mr Y provided in line with the Department of Transport Guidance using a suitable third party as listed in the guidance. It has explained to Mr Y why he is not eligible having referred to the criteria set out in in policy and the previously mentioned guidance. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mr Y’s blue badge application to justify our investigation so we will not investigate.
9. The Ombudsman cannot find that a body in jurisdiction has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find a body at fault for failing to take account of their duties under the Equality Act. As the Council used criteria, which considers the impact on a person, rather than on any specific health condition or age, it is unlikely we would find fault and we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman