Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s Blue Badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in the Council’s decision, to justify investigating. Additionally, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council rejected his Blue Badge application and refused his appeal. He also complained about the professionalism of the assessors. Mr X said the refusal caused distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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 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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X said the Council failed to consider his medical conditions during his application for a Blue Badge. Mr X provided further information about his medical condition in his appeal.
8. The Council’s initial consideration of Mr X’s request and appeal correspondence indicates it considered Mr X’s medical conditions including the new information he subsequently provided. It revised its assessment of his condition but this still fell short of eligibility threshold.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.
10. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault. On the information available in the reports, I have seen, and on balance of the evidence, the Council has followed the processes in line with guidance and the scoring mechanism. It also considered Mr X’s medical needs, scored them in line with its assessment criteria and decided he did not meet the threshold for a Blue Badge. It also considered the additional information Mr X provided as part of his appeal.
11. Mr X also complained about the conduct of the assessors. The Council acknowledged his concerns and advised that they will review their practices to identify any improvements to the service. Given this, I will not investigate this aspect of the complaint, as there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Additionally, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman