Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to renew her relative, Mr Y’s Blue Badge. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has refused to renew her relative, Mr Y’s Blue Badge. She says this has made journeys more difficult for Mr Y. She wants the Council to complete an in-person assessment with Mr Y and issue him with 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.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X applied to the Council to renew her relative, Mr Y’s Blue Badge. The Council considered the application and supporting evidence but decided he did not meet the eligibility criteria for a Blue Badge and declined the application.
7. Ms X asked the Council to review its decision and submitted further supporting evidence, but it did not change its position.
8. In her complaint to us, Ms X states the Council did not complete an in-person assessment with Mr Y, which would have provided the Council with the evidence it needs to show he is eligible for a Blue Badge.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. I have considered Ms X’s application and the Council’s records of its decision making. The records show the Council considered the evidence related to Mr Y’s physical mobility as part of its assessment. It acknowledged Ms X’s reports of restricted mobility but decided there was insufficient evidence to indicate his mobility was severely restricted, and so an in-person mobility assessment was not required.
10. A decision regarding whether a person should be invited to an in-person assessment is for the Council to make and as it has appropriately considered the matter, we cannot question the outcome.
11. The Council considered the application and supporting evidence provided before reaching its decision and its decision appears in line with the guidance. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman