Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to decline his blue badge application and about delay in it completing a reassessment. This is because the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to decline his blue badge application and about delay in it completing a reassessment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 how the organisation made its decision, 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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied for a blue badge and freedom pass. In December 2023, the Council completed its assessment. This assessment determined Mr X was eligible for the freedom pass, but not for a blue badge. Mr X was unhappy with this decision and asked the Council to review it.
7. Having reviewed the December 2023 assessment, I am satisfied there is no evidence of fault with how it was carried out. The scores awarded align with the information Mr X provided during the assessment.
8. In January 2024, Mr X complained because his review had been scheduled several times.
9. In its complaint response, the Council explained the first appointment was cancelled as the assessor felt there was a language barrier. Therefore, the assessor felt this would not give Mr X the best opportunity to demonstrate he met the eligibility rules for a blue badge. The Council also explained the second appointment was cancelled as it had been allocated to the same assessor that had completed the first assessment. As this was a review, it was not appropriate for them to complete it.
10. An investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. The Council has already explained its reasons for why the review was rescheduled. The reasons given by the Council are reasonable. Further, I am satisfied that even if there was delay in the Council completing the review, this did not cause Mr X any significant injustice. This is because the decision remained that Mr X was not eligible for a blue badge.
11. In February 2024, the Council completed its review. The record confirms a translator was present during the telephone interview. The assessment recorded Mr X told the assessor he could manage approximately 30 steps or fewer, at a slow pace, before experiencing pain and fatigue and needed to stop. It was also recorded Mr X told the assessor he had fallen around two weeks prior to the assessment and that this was caused by dizziness and reduced balance.
12. However, the assessor awarded scores which don’t reflect the information Mr X provided. For example, for balance and mobility, the assessor scored one but it appears Mr X was potentially eligible for a score of three given Mr X had reported he had previously fallen. It might be the assessor had a rationale for why he scored Mr X lower, but this was not recorded in the assessment. Therefore, there appears to be fault with how the assessment was completed.
13. However, I am satisfied the potential faults will not have caused any significant injustice. This is because even if higher scores were awarded to Mr X in line with the information he gave the assessor, he would still not score high enough to be eligible for a blue badge. Further, I am also satisfied the December 2023 assessment was completed without fault. Therefore, this is further evidence Mr X would still not be eligible for a blue badge, even if the likely fault had not occurred.
14. The Council has offered Mr X £100 to recognise the time and trouble taken with regards to pursuing his complaint. This remedy is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any further recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman