Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s application to renew a disabled parking permit. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X said the Council turned down her application to renew her disabled parking permit (blue badge) despite her condition not having improved. She said she had not been able to check the application before it was submitted. She also said the Council had not taken proper account of the effect of her conditions, which meant she would need to be able to park near toilets.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We do not function as a further appeal after an appeal to the Council. We cannot reach our own view of whether a person should be awarded a disabled parking permit or whether the decision is fair or harsh, if the Council has reached its decision without fault.
6. The fact that a person already has a permit and is seeking to renew it does not mean that renewal should be automatic. I note Miss X said the assessment was a “tick-box” exercise and that she had not been able to check what she had submitted because this was over the telephone. However, the record of her appeal shows the decision-makers were aware of her conditions and the effects she said they had. I do not therefore consider an investigation by us would be likely to find Miss X was prevented from making her case.
7. The record of the appeal shows the decision-makers considered Miss X’s mobility and other non-visible disabilities that might mean she needed to park in places the badge would allow. It took the view that her conditions alone did not automatically create a need for the permit. It took the view that her mobility and other assessed factors did not mean she needed to be close to facilities when parking. It could take that view. That Miss X takes a different view does not mean we would be likely to find fault in the Council’s cations if we investigated.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman