Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr Y’s son’s blue badge application because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response and an investigation by the Ombudsman would unlikely achieve anything more for Mr Y.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the handling of a blue badge application for his son (Z). He says the Council’s poor handling resulted in the application being incorrectly rejected.
2. Mr Y says the delays experienced in the Council’s handling of this caused significant stress and disruption to family life for him and Z.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y applied for a blue badge for his son (Z). The Council referred Z for a face-to-face assessment, which it agrees should not have happened. The blue badge application was rejected, which the Council agrees was incorrect. It has now issued a blue badge for Z.
7. Mr Y complained to the Council about this. There were significant delays in the Council’s response to Mr Y. There were further delays in processing the application, and the Council agrees this was due to procedural errors.
8. The Council upheld Mr Y’s complaint. It issued an apology and agreed to pay Mr Y £100 compensation for poor quality of service and distress caused by delays. The Council agreed that Mr Y’s complaint highlighted a training need for its staff and is reviewing its blue badge application process to prevent future issues occurring.
9. I understand Mr Y wants the Council to offer him more compensation. We do not make recommendations for organisations to pay compensation. Where an individual has suffered injustice because of an organisation’s actions, we may suggest a remedy. We publish guidance on remedies, and I am satisfied that the Council has sufficiently remedied the injustice experienced by Mr Y in line with our guidance.
10. I am satisfied that the Council has identified a need for service improvement and is taking steps to complete this.
11. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response, and an investigation would unlikely achieve anything more for Mr Y. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response and an investigation by the Ombudsman would unlikely achieve anything more for Mr Y.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman