Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council closed his application for a Blue Badge without providing a right of review or appeal. He says the evidence provided shows he is eligible for a Blue Badge as he receives the required points under the mobility part of the Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
2. Mr X is also unhappy with the Council’s complaint handling and communication.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council sent Mr X a letter explaining he needed to provide further information which is required to process his application for a blue badge.
7. The Council is entitled to seek more information in line with its published policy which says applications without the required documents will not be processed. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.
8. Mr X says he scored the required points under the “planning and following journeys” aspect of his PIP award to be eligible for a Blue Badge. I will not investigate this element of Mr X’s complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. This is because the Council’s published policy states applicants must score the required points specifically on grounds of overwhelming psychological distress and Mr X has not done so. It is up to Mr X to provide the evidence required to satisfy the eligibility criteria. Mr X may seek clarification directly from the Council about its decision to ask for more evidence if he wishes to.
9. It would not be a good use of public money to investigate matters related to the Council’s complaint handling and communication when I will not investigate the substantive matter of this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman