Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s Blue Badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the application to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council delayed and mishandled her Blue Badge application. She says the application was not properly progressed despite her providing supporting information.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

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 Department for Transport’s (DfT) Blue Badge Scheme helps people with severe physical mobility problems, or other conditions affecting their mobility, to access goods and services. 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. Mrs X applied for a Blue Badge and provided information about her health conditions. She also provided supporting documentation.
8. The evidence shows the Council was initially unable to progress the application because acceptable proof of identity had not been provided and some documents submitted could not be opened because they were password protected. The Council contacted Mrs X to explain the issues and later accepted alternative documentation when difficulties arose because of a name change.
9. Once the required documentation had been received, the Council referred the application for assessment. The Council later transferred the application to a different assessment provider when concerns were raised about delays in obtaining an outcome.
10. The assessment provider attempted to arrange mobility assessment appointments on three occasions. The assessment did not take place and could not be completed. The assessment provider subsequently confirmed that the application had been terminated.
11. The Council acknowledged the application process had taken longer than expected and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It also acknowledged that the method used to communicate appointment information may not have been suitable and offered to arrange a further assessment appointment, together with any reasonable adjustments that might be required, if Mrs X wished to continue with the application process.
12. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at whether Mrs X should receive a Blue Badge. Instead, we consider whether there was fault in how the Council handled the application. The evidence shows the Council took steps to obtain the required documents, accepted alternative evidence where appropriate, referred the application for assessment, changed assessment providers when delays arose, and attempted to arrange assessment appointments.
13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. We have not seen sufficient evidence that the Council failed to follow the application process or unreasonably refused to consider the application.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs 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