Kent County Council (20 009 959)

Category : Children's care services > Disabled children

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 22 Feb 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr C’s complaint that the Council is at fault in declining his application for a Blue Badge for his disabled son. This is because it is unlikely we would identify fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr C, complains that the Council is at fault in declining his application for a Blue Badge for his disabled son.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered what Mr C has said in support of his complaint. I have also considered the application and review documents provided by the Council and the non-statutory guidance issued by the Government in 2019. I have offered Mr C the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr C’s son has a diagnosis of autism. Mr C says his diagnosis and the dangers it poses to him mean his son needs a Blue Badge under the disabled parking scheme administered by councils.
  2. Mr C applied for a Blue Badge on the grounds of his son’s non-visible disability. He provided the Council with medical evidence in support of the application. The Council assessed the application and declined it. Mr C asked for a review of the decision. The Council reassessed the application and declined it again.
  3. Mr C argues that the Council is at fault in declining the application. He argues that it has failed to take proper account of new guidance issued to councils regarding non-visible disabilities. He argues that his son qualifies under the terms of the guidance and the Council should issue him with a Blue Badge.
  4. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part. The Council carried out two separate assessments, specifically on the basis of non-visible disabilities. The assessments were carried out by different officers and reached the same conclusion. The Council says it uses the non-statutory guidance issued by the Government in 2019 and there is nothing in the two assessments to indicate otherwise.
  5. It is not for the Ombudsman to say whether Mr C’s son should have a Blue Badge. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided Mr C’s application. In the absence of evidence of fault, we cannot criticise the decision or intervene to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings