Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s Freedom Pass and Blue Badge applications. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in how the Council considered the matter, to justify investigating. Also, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council refused his initial Freedom Pass and Blue Badge application and then, on appeal, issued both. He said this caused him 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (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 Freedom Pass and Blue Badge.
8. The Council’s consideration of Mr X’s initial application and subsequent appeal shows it took account of the medical evidence he provided. The Council requested further evidence and, having reviewed the information received, decided to issue a Freedom Pass and Blue Badge. It also explained what medical evidence was missing and what further information Mr X needed to provide to support his application.
9. 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, there is evidence the Council followed its assessment process, considered the available medical evidence, and applied its criteria to reach its decision. In any case, further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome as it overturned initial decision on appeal and issued him a Freedom Pass and Blue Badge.
10. 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.
11. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s handling of his complaint, including delays and its consideration of his reasonable adjustments.
12. We will not investigate this aspect. It is not a good use of public resources to consider complaints about complaint procedures where we are unable to investigate the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman