Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her son Mr Y’s Blue Badge application and appeal, its consideration of his medical evidence, the basis of its decision-making, or the time the Council took to issue its decisions. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X is Mr Y’s mother. Mr Y has various mental health conditions. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. unlawfully and incorrectly refused Mr Y a Blue Badge;
2. ignored medical evidence submitted with his application;
3. based the decision on personal opinion, not on the relevant guidance;
4. delayed when making its decisions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 from Mrs X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and, if that fault had not happened, officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if its decision was reached by following the proper process.
6. With help from Mrs X, Mr Y made an application for a Blue Badge to allow him to park in assigned spaces closer to his destinations. On assessing Mr Y’s application, officers considered the evidence provided, including various documents about his medical and mental health conditions. The officer considering the initial application refused it on the grounds that the impacts of Mr Y’s conditions did not qualify him for a Blue Badge under the national government guidance.
7. Mrs X appealed the refusal. During the appeal process, Mrs X provided the Council with more documents and sent further comments by email. The officers spoke to Mrs X about the application by telephone and gave advice on the kind of information they were seeking to inform their decision, on how Mr Y’s conditions affected his mobility. Before making their final decision, officers sought further evidence from Mrs X, seeking detail on Mrs Y’s medical and mental health provision. The officer deciding the appeal determined the information did not demonstrate Mr Y’s conditions caused him such mobility difficulty that he was eligible for a Blue Badge under the national government’s criteria so refused the application.
8. The evidence shows officers took account of the information Mrs X provided and applied the relevant criteria when making their decisions. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes here, including their consideration of the medical and other supporting information, to justify an investigation. We recognise Mrs X and Mr Y disagree with and are disappointed by the Council’s decision. But we cannot replace a properly made decision with our or anyone else’s view, and it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. In a message to Mrs X, the officer considering Mr Y’s appeal stated they did not ‘think’ they could award him a Blue Badge. Mrs X considers this shows the Council’s decision was based on the personal opinion of an officer. But the officer’s message sought to explain to Mrs X that on the information the Council currently held, the officer did not consider Mr Y’s appeal was likely to succeed, and asked for more specific information. It did not form part of the Council’s later formal appeal decision. The message’s wording is not evidence that the Council’s decision was solely based on the officer’s opinion, rather than following the proper process and applying the appropriate national government criteria to the appeal. There is insufficient evidence of Council fault on this issue to justify us investigating.
10. Mrs X complains the Council delayed making its decision on Mr Y’s application and appeal. Officers issued the initial refusal in about seven weeks. That timescale for officers to determine the application is not such that it amounts to Council fault. Mrs X sought to appeal the initial refusal on the same day. During the appeal process, Mrs X then sent numerous emails with further comment and information she wanted officers to consider. The Council also invited Mrs X to send additional evidence of Mr Y’s conditions and their impact on his mobility and gave her time to provide that information. Mrs X thanked the Council for keeping the appeal process open so she could provide them with the further appeal evidence. The Council’s officers had several hundreds of pages of documents to consider as part of Mr Y’s appeal. The Council decided the appeal just over two months after its initial refusal, a period which included the Christmas holiday. Taking into account its timing and the amount of appeal contacts, correspondence and other information officers had to consider, the Council’s appeal process did not take such time to amount to fault so does not warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint made on behalf of Mr Y because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s Blue Badge decision-making processes to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman