Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a refused blue badge application. There is not enough evidence of fault with the Council’s decision making.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused his blue badge application. He says there were flaws in his assessment. He also says the Council focused too heavily on certain factors while ignoring others. Mr X also complains the council did not communicate with him in good time. Mr X says the Council’s decision and poor communication has caused negatively impacted his mental and physical health. He wants the Council to reassess him.

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 Mr X.
5. I considered government guidance on the blue badge scheme in England.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. People may qualify for a badge if they are assessed and considered unable to walk or to have severe mobility issues.
8. The guidance says that people who can walk 80 metres and do not demonstrate very considerable difficulty in walking are not eligible for a badge. Mr X applied for a blue badge and his walking was assessed. Mr X says the assessor only watched him walk 25 metres rather than 80. The Council disputes this, and his assessment records him as having walked over 80 metres. On balance of the evidence, we would not find fault in how the Council assessed Mr X on this point.
9. Mr X’s appeal to the Council also highlighted other concerns he had with how the assessment was carried out. I have considered how the Council carried out its assessment and what information it used to decide. With the information we have available, we are unlikely to find fault with the Council over the information it used to assess Mr X.
10. The Council gave reasons for deciding that, while Mr X had some difficulties, his application did not reach the threshold for a blue badge. We are unlikely to find fault in how the Council made its decision. Although Mr X disagrees with the outcome, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision so there is no reason to start an investigation.
11. We are not an appeals body, and we cannot overturn the Council’s decision. We look at how the Council made its decision and whether there was any flaw in that decision-making. If there was no fault in the Council’s decision-making, we cannot question it. So, we will not investigate this.
12. The Council has accepted it responded to Mr X’s appeal late due to the number of appeals it had. It also apologised to him for the delay. This is a sufficient remedy for any injustice to Mr X caused by delays and so we will not investigate here.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision-making process, and it has already remedied any injustice to Mr X caused by delays in carrying out an appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman