Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his blue badge application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision on the application. There is another body better placed to consider his data protection concerns. On the remaining issues, further investigation by us is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his blue badge application. He said the Council:
• wrongly refused his blue badge application;
• sent its decision letter to the wrong address, which breached his personal data; and
• failed to make reasonable adjustments for him.
2. Mr X said the Council’s refusal affects his ability to travel safely. He is frustrated with the other matters. He wants the Council to reassess his blue badge application and recognise its other failings.

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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the blue badge scheme local authority guidance (the government guidance).

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X applied for a blue badge on hidden disability grounds. The Council refused the application because it was not satisfied the evidence showed he was eligible for a blue badge. It told Mr X he could appeal the decision if he provided further information which showed his eligibility. The Council has not received an appeal from Mr X.
8. Mr X believes the Council wrongly rejected his application, failed to consider his evidence and misapplied the government guidance.
9. Some applicants are automatically eligible for a blue badge. For hidden disabilities, this applies where a person receives the mobility component of Personal Independence Payment and scores exactly 10 points under the “planning and following journeys” activity. Mr X scored 12 points, not 10, so he was not automatically eligible. In these circumstances, councils may ask for further information to decide whether a person is eligible.
10. The Council asked Mr X to provide further evidence, including a form completed by a registered healthcare professional. It also said he could provide alternative supporting evidence if he could not complete the form. Mr X did not provide this information.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We cannot challenge the Council’s decision unless there is fault in its decision making. I am satisfied the Council followed proper processes to reach its decision and considered Mr X’s application in line with the government guidance. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify us investigating. If Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision, then it would be reasonable for him to appeal the decision.

Decision sent to wrong address and alleged personal data breach

12. We may decide not to investigate a complaint if there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.
13. Mr X’s concerns about any alleged data breach are better considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office (the ICO). The ICO handles complaints about breaches of data protection laws and misuse of personal information. Therefore, I will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Reasonable adjustments

14. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
15. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
16. Mr X complains the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for him because it:
• insisted he complete a form with a registered healthcare professional as part of his application; and
• sent its decision by post rather than email like he asked.
17. The evidence I have seen shows the Council gave Mr X the choice to send alternative supporting evidence if he could not complete the form. Therefore, I do not consider Mr X was disadvantaged and there is not enough evidence of fault on this point. The Council provided an alternative other than the form. It was open to Mr X to tell the Council if he needed any other adjustments so it could consider this further.
18. In relation to the decision letter, the Council accepted that given Mr X’s request and stated disabilities it should have sent its decision by email and apologised for not doing this. I consider this a suitable action to recognise Mr X’s distress further investigation by us is unlikely to achieve anything further.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making, his data protection concerns are better addressed by the ICO, and further investigation into the remaining matters would not achieve a worthwhile outcome. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal the Council’s decision using its appeal process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman