Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s Blue Badge application and appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered the matter to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council handled his Blue Badge application. Mr X says this affected his independence, ability to travel and everyday activity. He wants the Council to re-assess his application.

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))

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. Mr X said the Council failed to assess his application for a Blue Badge against the correct criteria. He feels the Council did not properly consider the impact of his condition on his ability to undertake journeys safely and needing to have urgent access to facilities.
7. Mr X applied for a Blue Badge under the hidden disabilities criteria and the Council refused his application.
8. Mr X appealed the Council’s refusal of his Blue Badge and said the decision letter showed his application was assessed under the hidden disability criteria relating to cognitive or psychological impairments. Mr X said his application related mainly to the physical and functional impact of his condition and asked for his application to be reconsidered.
9. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision, and it assessed Mr X’s physical abilities and found he did not meet the eligible threshold.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council followed its assessment and appeal process. It considered the evidence Mr X submitted to support his application. It explained the criteria Mr X would need to meet to be awarded a Blue Badge in its appeal letters and clearly set out why it decided he did not meet this.
11. 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 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.

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.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman