Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council initially refusing his blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council initially refusing his blue badge application. He wants the Council to pay him compensation for the delay as the Council eventually agreed to issue him a blue badge.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied for a blue badge at the end of May 2024. The Council asked Mr X to provide supporting medical evidence to confirm his disability.
6. At the end of June 2024, the Council contacted Mr X as it had still not received the support evidence requested.
7. In July 2024, Mr X told the Council he was still waiting for a letter from his consultant and that he would provide it once received.
8. Mr X provided the Council with the medical evidence in mid July 2024. The Council reviewed this the same day. The evidence outlined:
• Mr X’s diagnosis and history.
• Mr X was comfortable post procedure, with no complaints of leg pain.
• Mr X walked independently.
• Mr X was at risk of falls.
9. Based on the information supplied, the Council declined Mr X’s application.
10. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision at the end of July. It took the Council seven days to consider Mr X’s appeal. The Council contacted Mr X to discuss his application and his health conditions. Mr X provided further information that he was struggling with his mobility and that he was on the waiting list for a knee replacement. Mr X also told the Council he walked with a mobility aid.
11. Following the discussion, the Council was satisfied Mr X met the criteria for a blue badge and issued the blue badge on the same day.
12. An investigation is not justified because we are not likely to find fault with the way the Council considered Mr X’s blue badge application. The Council has provided a clear rationale as to why it originally declined the application. The Council explained it declined the application as Mr X did not meet the criteria for a blue badge as the medical evidence provided stated he could walk independently and there was no leg pain.
13. The Council then appropriately followed the correct process by considering Mr X’s appeal. The Council confirmed the reason why it changed its decision was due to Mr X providing new additional information which affected its decision.
14. I note Mr X is unhappy that the original assessor was not medically qualified. However, there is no requirement for blue badge decisions to be made by someone who is medically qualified.
15. Even if we were to find fault with the Council for not approving the blue badge initially, we would not investigate. This is because the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice as it took the Council just 13 days to consider the appeal and to issue the blue badge.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman