Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Blue Badge application. We would be unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions that significantly undermined the decision-making.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council mishandled her application for a Blue Badge for her child, as a result of which it unfairly refused her application. She says it:

• gave her conflicting information about the documents she submitted with her application;
• exceeded the deadline to make a decision; and
• misspelled her child’s name.

Miss X says she experienced significant confusion and unnecessary work chasing Council responses, and her child does not have the Blue Badge they need to access activities.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says the Council initially told her it refused her application for a Blue Badge because it could not find any relevant supporting documents in its files. This was even though Miss X had sent it her child’s Education Health and Care plan (EHC plan) and Personal Independence Payment (PIP) award letter. In the Council’s refusal decision letter, it explained that neither the PIP award nor EHC plan demonstrated Miss X’s child met as the eligibility criteria for a Blue Badge. We would be unlikely to find any fault in whether the Council considered those documents as the evidence suggests the Council did consider them.
6. Miss X says the Council later said the EHC plan was not sufficient evidence, even though its published guidance on Blue Badges says it will accept EHC plans. The Council’s guidance allows it to consider EHC plans but does not guarantee they will provide the evidence needed to qualify for a Blue Badge. The Council’s decision letter shows it considered the EHC plan provided by Miss X and concluded it did not demonstrate the child’s circumstances met the threshold for a Blue Badge.
7. Government guidance on Blue Badges says the application process may take 12 weeks or longer, and that Councils cannot start it until they have all the necessary evidence. The Council issued its decision 13 weeks and one day after Miss X’s application. We would be unlikely to find the Council at fault because the delay was caused by it asking for medical evidence, which it was entitled to do. The Council issued a decision within three days of Miss X providing that.
8. Any misspelling of Miss X’s child’s name is unlikely to have impacted on the Council’s consideration of the evidence Miss X provided to support her application or affected its decision-making. Any fault on this point is not significant enough for us to investigate.
9. Miss X says the Council’s procedural failings led to it unfairly dismissing her Blue Badge application. However, the Council could only issue a Blue Badge if her child met the legal criteria. None of the procedural faults Miss X alleges would necessarily mean the Council refused a Blue Badge for a child who met the criteria for one. If Miss X was unhappy with the Council’s decision to refuse the Blue Badge, she could have used her right to ask the Council to review that decision.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we would be unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions that caused significant injustice or deprived her child of a Blue Badge.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman