This was a complaint brought against Cornwall Council. Mr A complained that the council delayed to process his application for a blue badge. As a result this caused Mr A inconvenience and avoidable parking expenses. The LGO found that the Council was at fault for not issuing Mr A without a blue badge because it had evidence and the application fee. The Council agreed to pay Mr A £300.
The LGO considered a claim brought by Mr X against London Borough of Ealing. Mr X complained that the Council failed to properly review his application for a Blue Badge. Mr X was depressed, desperate and distressed due to the Council’s failure to provide him with a badge for about 10 months. The LGO found that the Council was at fault in the way it decided Mr X’s application. The Council agreed to restore Mr X’s assessment; process Mr X’s application as a matter of urgency; apologise to Mr X for the error in calculation and the delay in dealing with his application; pay Mr X the amount of £150 for his stress, inconvenience, time and trouble in being without a Blue Badge for over six months when he had applied in good time and was found to be eligible and review its appeal procedures.
This was a complaint brought by Mrs A against West Sussex County Council. Mrs A had a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, causing a shortness of breath. Mrs A also had arthritis and back pain. Mrs A’s pace was below the threshold for a “very slow” pace, as defined by the Department for Transport Guidance. The assessor failed to refer to Mrs A’s very slow pace in the summary of her decisions or explain why this did not qualify Mrs A for a blue badge. As a result the council was at a fault. The LGO found that the Council’s decision was not in line with the Department for Transport Guidance. The Council agreed therefore to offer Mrs A a further mobility assessment with a different assessor; pay her £150 for the inconvenience it had put her to if she would be successful at the reassessment and to take step to ensure its independent mobility assessors apply the Department for Transport’s Guidance properly.
Mr B complained against London Borough of Harrow on behalf of his son who had several medical conditions, including epilepsy, dyspraxia, Crohn’s disease, short bowel syndrome, joint pain and osteoporosis. Mr C also had learning difficulties. Mr B complained that the Council unreasonably refused to Mr C’s application for a taxi card and failed to consider Mr C’s medical conditions. The LGO found that the Council was not at fault for refusing mr C’s application for a taxi card. However the Council provided misleading information about the criteria for the scheme to Mr C. The Council agreed to reword the eligibility criteria for taxi cards on its website, agreed to apologise to Mr C and to pay Mr C £100 compensation to reflect the time and trouble Mr C had to go in pursuing his compliant.
The LGO considered a complained against Wokingham Borough Council. Mrs c complained that the Council failed to reissue her blue badge, even though she needed one. Mrs C also complained that the Council failed ton inform her that she had to submit medical evidence. The allegation was also that the Council failed to promptly advice her that she could take her complaint through the Council’s complaint procedure and this resulted in unnecessary delays. The LGO found that there was not fault in the way the Council decided that Mrs C did not meet the criteria to receive a blue parking badge. The LGO found, however, that the council was at fault for failing to advice Mrs C, in a timely manner what she could do with her complaint after the appeals process. The LGO recommended the Council to apologise to Mrs C and pay her an amount of £100 for the injustice caused to her for the time and trouble she experienced in pursuing her complained. The LGO also suggested that the Council provides clear instructions of where applicants can go if they would like to complaint about the Council’s decision and review its “Guidance notes” to ensure it contains all the information applicants need.
Malcolm Johnson E: email@example.com
The contents of this site remains the sole responsibility of Malcolm Johnson as a private individual, and is not endorsed by any business by which he is employed. In particular Malcolm Johnson does not hold himself out as preparing this website for or on behalf of any business by which he is employed, or as having been authorised by any business or employer to do so. This website is produced for the assistance of advocates submitting complaints to local authorities and other organisations. It is not intended to stand as legal advice in any particular case, and should not be relied upon as such. To the extent permitted by law, Malcolm Johnson will not be liable by reason of breach of contract, negligence, or otherwise for any loss of consequential loss occasioned to any person acting omitting to act or refraining from acting in reliance upon the website material or arising from or connected with any error or omission in the website material. Consequential loss shall be deemed to include, but is not limited to, any loss of profits or anticipated profits, damage to reputation, or goodwill, loss of business or anticipated business, damages, costs, expenses incurred or payable to any third party or any other indirect or consequential losses.