Summary: There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered Miss X’s application to justify investigating. Any injustice due to a letter sent in error, is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council:
• failed to properly consider her supporting evidence and personal circumstances when it refused her application for a blue badge; and
• initially sent her an appeal refusal letter in error.
2. Miss X said these issues caused emotional distress and a loss of confidence in the Council. She wanted the Council to:
• acknowledge its alleged failures;
• arrange an independent review of her application;
• ensure all her supporting evidence is properly considered;
• apologise; and
• review its procedures.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X complained the Council did not properly consider her medical evidence or personal circumstances when it refused her application for a blue badge.
7. The Council responded to Miss X. It confirmed that when making its decision it considered her medical diagnoses and her reported difficulties surrounding traffic and parking.
8. It explained after consideration, Miss X’s application and supporting evidence did not meet the eligibility criteria. Therefore, it refused her application.
9. 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 you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
10. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider Miss X’s application, and the information it took account of when deciding to refuse her application. There is no fault in how it made the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
11. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this matter.
12. Miss X said the Council initially sent her a letter stating her appeal of its decision had been refused, in error. She said this caused her emotional distress.
13. We will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the service provider.
14. This means that we will normally only investigate a complaint where:
• the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the service provider, or
• there are continuous and ongoing instances of a lower-level injustice that remain unresolved over a long period of time.
15. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
16. Ultimately, Miss X’s application was refused, and there is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision. Therefore, any injustice caused by this issue was not a direct result of the Council’s actions. Any injustice caused is also not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and any injustice caused is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman