Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about how the Council considered their application for a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. X complained the Council failed to properly consider the psychological impact on them when it refused their application for a blue badge.
2. X said this caused them significant emotional distress and meant they continued to face difficulties when travelling. They wanted the Council to:
• reconsider its decision;
• properly consider their psychological distress;
• explain how their application was evaluated; and
• issue them with a blue badge.

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. (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. X said the Council failed to consider their reports of psychological distress when it rejected their application for a blue badge.
7. The Council responded to X’s concerns. It explained when it assessed their application it considered the following:
• X’s evidenced medical diagnosis;
• X’s reports of immense psychological distress because of their symptoms; and
• X’s recent and relevant specialist evidence.
8. The Council explained after consideration of the above:
• the evidence and reported information demonstrated mild difficulties with travel;
• there was no submitted evidence that X had very considerable psychological distress when walking or taking a journey;
• there was no submitted evidence that X was at risk of serious harm to themselves or to others in the context of travel; and
• the evidence and information provided by X did not meet the criteria for provision of a blue badge.
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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. In making its decision, the Council took account of the relevant guidance, medical evidence, criteria, and information from X. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision and I cannot therefore criticise it.
11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman