Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainants’ application and appeal for a Blue Badge for their son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. The complainants, Mr and Mrs X, complain that the Council’s decision to refuse their application and appeal for a Blue Badge parking permit for their son was flawed.

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. Mr and Mrs X’s son, who I will refer to as Y, has a diagnosis of autism and an Education Health and Care plan. Mr and Mrs X applied for a Blue Badge on the grounds of Y’s hidden disabilities. They contend that he is in danger while in and around vehicles, especially in car parks.
6. Mr and Mrs X’s application was refused. They used their right to appeal against the decision. The appeal was also unsuccessful. They complain that both decisions are flawed. They say that the initial decision was based on an incorrect appraisal of the evidence they provided. Specifically, they say the decision maker was wrong to conclude that key evidence was outdated, and that further specialist information would have been required for a different decision to be made.
7. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to take a view on whether Y qualifies for a Blue Badge. That is a decision for the Council. Rather, our role is to consider whether the evidence indicates that the process of making the decision was characterised by fault, and that fault could have led to an outcome which would not otherwise have been the case. There is no such evidence.
8. Mr and Mrs X have set out why they believe the initial refusal of their application was flawed. Their recourse was to use their right of appeal, which they did. In support of the appeal, they clearly set out why the evidence they had provided was not out of date, and provided further information. The appeal decision statement shows that this argument and information was taken into account. But the decision maker felt that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate Y’s eligibility for a Blue Badge.
9. Mr and Mrs X disagree with the appeal decision. But that does not mean it is flawed. It is properly set out and there is no evidence to suggest fault in the way the decision maker reached their view. In the absence of such evidence, we cannot criticise the decision, or intervene to substitute an alternative view. We will not therefore investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman