Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council turning down Mr X’s application for a disabled person’s parking permit. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. In summary, Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to grant him a disabled person’s parking badge (Blue Badge) despite his ill health. Mr X does not believe his medical information has been considered properly by the Council.
2. Mr X says his suicidal tendencies are increasing and he would like the Council to grant him a blue badge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
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 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and our previous decisions (21015746, 23000858).

My assessment

7. The Council’s June 2024 response letter to Mr X says his application is ‘almost identical to the previously refused application from 2023’.
8. Mr X made his application for a blue badge under the ‘hidden disabilities’ criteria (people who experience considerable psychological distress while walking).
9. The Council wrote to Mr X saying the medical information did not evidence the reasons why Mr X says he need the Blue Badge. The Council concluded it was satisfied its rejection of the application was correct.
10. We have looked at Mr X’s case in detail in previous case references 21015746 and 23000858. We found being in receipt of a Personal Independence Payment (PIP) for ‘needing help to follow a journey’ does not entitle Mr X to a badge. And as he does not receive those parts of the PIP (relating to difficulty in moving around or feeling overwhelming psychological distress) he does not automatically qualify.
11. Mr X says he is entitled to a blue badge due to his ill health and number of medications. Mr X says he will be judicially reviewing both the Council and the Ombudsman.
12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a Council decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
13. As there is nothing to suggest the Council’s decision was affected by fault, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to award a Blue Badge.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman