Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue the complainant’s charity with an organisational blue badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to issue an organisational blue badge to a charity. Mr X is a trustee with a charity that provides transport to older and disabled people.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 Mr X and the Council. This includes the correspondence about the application and the blue badge guidance. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The blue badge government guidance says an organisation may be eligible for a badge if it is concerned with the care and transport of disabled people who qualify for an individual badge. The guidance says it is unlikely a community transport group would qualify as they are not usually concerned with the care of disabled people. The guidance says it is for councils to make this judgement.
6. Mr X is a trustee for a charity that provides transport to older and disabled people. This includes transport to medical appointments, and social events and activities.
7. Mr X applied for an organisational badge. The Council assessed and then rejected the application. The Council decided the evidence does not show the charity provides care for the passengers or that the passengers could not apply for, and use, their own badges. The Council offered to help passengers apply for individual badges and to prioritise the applications.
8. Mr X disagrees with the decision. Amongst other points he argues that the service the charity provides is comparable to that provided by social services. He has referred to another charity, which he says provides the same service, which has been given an organisational badge.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. We are not an appeal body and it is not my role to re-make the decision or decide if the charity is eligible for a badge.
10. I can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council made the decision and I have not seen any suggestion of fault. The correspondence shows the Council considered its policy, the guidance and the information provided by Mr X. The decision it reached flows from the combination of all these sources and the Council cross-referenced Mr X’s points with the policy. Mr X disagrees and has, at times, placed a different interpretation on the guidance, but this does not mean there is evidence of fault by the Council.
11. Mr X referred to a successful application by another charity. I asked the Council about this. Due to data protection rules, I cannot share any information about this with Mr X, but I am satisfied there are no grounds to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman