Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to renew Mr X’s Blue Badge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s Blue Badge renewal process. He said the process was unfair and discriminatory as the Council failed to make his requested reasonable adjustments.
2. Mr X also said the Council ignored key evidence and its decision not to renew his Blue Badge put him at avoidable risk. He wants a formal apology and for the Council to renew his Blue Badge.

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))
4. 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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X applied for a Blue Badge renewal under the non-visible criteria. Mr X’s GP completed the Expert Assessor proforma which the Council considered alongside an audiologist report. The Council decided Mr X did not meet the non-visible disability criteria so organised a mobility assessment to consider his application under the mobility criteria.
9. The notes from Mr X’s mobility assessment state that he walked approximately 120 meters, was confident in movement and showed no sign of discomfort or distress. The assessment concluded Mr X demonstrated he could walk without considerable difficulty or posing a risk of serious harm to himself or others. Therefore, the Council decided he did not meet the criteria for a Blue Badge.
10. Mr X asked the Council for a review of its decision and provided a GP letter as evidence. Mr X also complained the Council did not make reasonable adjustments during the mobility assessment. He said he asked for a quiet carpeted room and an Expert Assessor without an accent.
11. In its complaint response the Council said it made the requested adjustments. It also said the Expert Assessor confirmed Mr X was happy with the adjustments.
12. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act, only the courts can do that. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act. I have considered the case records of the mobility assessment, and am satisfied the Council accommodated Mr X’s reasonable adjustment request, therefore we will not investigate, because it is unlikely we would find fault. If Mr X feels there has been a breach in the Equality Act, this is a matter for the court.
13. The Council took Mr X’s application to a review forum. It considered all available evidence including information from Mr X’s GP and audiologist. It decided Mr X was not eligible for a Blue Badge under the non-visible disability or mobility category. It wrote to Mr X setting out its reasons why.
14. We are not an appeal body and only consider if there is fault in the way the Council made its decision. The forum review report records how it made the decision Mr X was not eligible for a Blue Badge. Mr X may disagree, but there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman