The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that he is not eligible for a blue badge. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about access to records.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council has failed to issue him with a blue badge. He also says the Council has refused to allow him access to his records. He says the refusal to issue a blue badge has caused him distress and is stopping him from accessing the community. He wants the Council to issue him with a blue badge and respond to his subject access request.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Department of Transport has issued guidance for councils operating a blue badge scheme. People qualify for a badge if they are unable to walk, are at serious risk of harm when walking or experience considerable difficulty when walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress.
Mr X applied for a blue badge but the Council refused his application. Mr X appealed the decision. He attended a face to face assessment as part of his appeal. The assessor upheld the decision that he was not eligible for a blue badge. Mr X complains that the Council has not properly considered his application and has ignored his evidence.
We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council considered Mr X’s application and also completed a face to face assessment. The assessor considered the information provided by Mr X both in his application and during the assessment but decided he did not meet the criteria.
The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. That means we will not take another look at a decision and come to our own conclusions. Instead, we look at the process the Council followed when it made its decision. If we consider it followed these processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
Whilst I accept Mr X does not agree with the decision, the Council appears to have appropriately considered his application against the criteria set out in the blue badge guidance and has explained to Mr X why he is not eligible. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered his application to justify an investigation.
We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his subject access request. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the independent body set up to consider complaints about access to records and data protection. If Mr X is dissatisfied with how the Council has responded to his data request, the ICO is better placed to consider this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and the ICO is better placed to consider a complaint about access to records.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman