Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Blue Badge application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council mishandled his application for a Blue Badge by:

• misapplying sections of the Department for Transport’s (DfT) Blue Badge guidance (the guidance);
• pre-determining the outcome;
• wrongly saying it told him multiple times about a form he could use to provide supporting evidence (Appendix H); and
• failing in its public sector equality duty.

2. Mr X also complains the Council’s Monitoring Officer failed to intervene.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The DfT’s Blue Badge scheme helps people with severe physical mobility problems, or other conditions affecting their mobility, to access goods and services. It does this by allowing them, or their carer, to park near their destination. The guidance says councils must make sure they only issue badges to residents who satisfy one or more of the criteria set out in legislation.
7. Mr X was not automatically eligible for a Blue Badge so the Council considered his application under the “subject to further assessment” criteria in the guidance. Although Mr X says the Council should have applied “sensory risk” criteria, these are not in the guidance. A document Mr X cites does not form part of the guidance on Blue Badge assessments and instead concerns a consultation about automated vehicles. The evidence shows the Council considered how Mr X’s condition affects his ability to walk and his risk of harm in line with the relevant guidance. We would be unlikely to find the Council at fault for the criteria it applied and how it assessed Mr X’s eligibility.
8. Mr X asked the Council to review its initial refusal. The Council upheld its decision. It explained Mr X had not provided enough medical evidence to show his eligibility. Mr X complained to the Council about the review decision. The Council explained it needed more medical evidence to support Mr X’s application, and he could use a form called Appendix H to get it. Telling him about Appendix H at this stage does not mean the Council pre-determined its review decision, which was based on lack of medical evidence. The review decision and the complaint response were separate processes at different times. We would be unlikely to find the Council at fault on this point.
9. The Council told Mr X it would review his application again if he completed and sent Appendix H, but he did not do so. Any injustice to Mr X from not having another review therefore does not arise from the Council’s actions. Mr X disputes how many times the Council told him about Appendix H. On balance, it seems unlikely the number of times the Council told him about it, and when, would have changed the result. We will therefore not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint.
10. The Equality Act 2010 says organisations should make reasonable adjustments to help people with disabilities access services. This does not mean someone with disabilities is automatically entitled to a Blue Badge. There is evidence the Council took his disabilities into account and considered relevant medical information when assessing his eligibility. We would be unlikely to find it failed to have due to regard to its duties under the Equality Act.
11. Councils must appoint a Monitoring Officer to ensure decisions are fair and lawful. A Monitoring Officer must make a report if they believe the Council has acted unlawfully. In this case the Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s complaint and decided there was no evidence the Council acted unlawfully, so a report was not needed. Although Mr X disagrees with that decision, we are unlikely to criticise it because it was properly reached.
12. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council’s decisions to decide if they were wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how the Council made its decisions. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of procedural fault by the Council, or the Monitoring Officer, to question the merits of its decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault that is likely to have affected the result.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman