Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his blue badge renewal. This is because the Council apologised for the frustration caused by the delay and further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome. For the remainder, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X’s family member, Miss Y, complained about the Council’s handling of the renewal of Mr X’s blue badge. In particular, she said:
1. the call handler was rude and provided incorrect information about the renewal process; and
2. the Council refused to grant “No Further Action” (NFA) status in relation to future renewals.
2. Miss Y said these issues resulted in Mr X being without a valid blue badge for over a month, which affected his ability to travel and caused distress and anxiety. She wanted the Council to acknowledge its failings, explain why the NFA status was refused, review its procedures, and provide further staff training.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)

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. Miss Y applied to renew Mr X’s blue badge before the existing badge expired. The Council initially confirmed it had received the necessary information and advised the renewal application would be processed.
8. The Council later closed the application pending further evidence. Miss Y contacted the Council to query this decision and said the adviser she spoke to was rude and unhelpful.
9. Miss Y subsequently provided the requested evidence, and the Council approved the new application. However, because of the delay, there was a period of over one month during which Mr X did not hold a valid blue badge.
10. In response to the complaint, the Council acknowledged its errors, apologised for the inconvenience caused, and confirmed it had provided training to the staff member concerned. These actions are in line with the outcomes sought by Miss Y and we would be unlikely to achieve anything further through an investigation.
11. Miss Y also complained about the Council’s refusal to grant NFA status for future renewals. She explained that Mr X’s disabilities are permanent, and she believes Mr X should not have to reapply every three years.
12. However, the Council’s blue badge policy explains that badges do not automatically renew, and applicants are required to provide supporting evidence as part of each renewal application. I have seen no evidence suggesting the Council operates an NFA system or that applicants may be exempt from the renewal evidence requirements. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because further investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome, and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman