Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to issue Miss X with a Blue Badge because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council wrongly refused her a Blue Badge, noting her previous council awarded one. She also complains of delay in the process and poor complaint handling.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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 Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Relevant to this case, Government guidance says those who may be eligible for a Blue Badge following an assessment includes:
• a person who has been certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring and substantial disability which causes them, during the course of a journey, to be unable to walk, experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress
• in addition, they may be at risk of serious harm when walking - or pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to any other person.
7. Miss X says her deafness places her at risk of serious harm to herself and others as she cannot hear moving traffic. She says this also causes severe anxiety.
8. The Council’s final response shows it considered medical information provided by Miss X and information from her previous council as to its own decision making. It gave Miss X clear written reasons for its decision that she was not eligible, with reference to the Government guidance. In short it decided she did not experience very considerable difficulty while walking and was not at serious risk of harm, given her visual abilities.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify an investigation. Each council can reach its own judgement on the information available; that Miss X’s previous council awarded a Blue Badge does not mean the Council was wrong not to.
10. I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint of delay as this did not cause significant injustice, given she did not receive a Blue Badge.
11. I note Miss X is unhappy the Council did not address all the queries she raised during the complaint process. However, it is not a proportionate use of resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman