Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision not to award her a Blue Badge. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we will find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mrs X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to issue her with a Blue Badge and says it should allow her application under the criteria of “experiencing considerable psychological distress when transiting between vehicle and destination”.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mrs X and the Council. I gave Mrs X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs X suffers from a severe anxiety disorder and PTSD. She applied for a Blue Badge because it is difficult for her in situations she is unfamiliar with, particularly when she does not have immediate access to her car, and that in a heightened state of distress she finds it more difficult to think clearly and remember where her car is parked.
6. The Council considered Mrs X’s application and the medical evidence she provided. However, it refused her application because the information given did not sufficiently show that she qualified under the hidden disability criteria for a badge. It explained that to qualify under this criteria, the applicant must have an enduring and substantial disability that means “when transiting between the vehicle and destination they have considerable psychological distress when walking or are at risk of serious harm to themselves or any other person when walking”.
7. Mrs X appealed but the Council confirmed its decision. It said Mrs X had not provided sufficient evidence to show she met the criteria, specifically when transiting between vehicle and destination. It told Mrs X she could apply again in the future if her long term medical and walking condition deteriorated significantly, and she had new evidence of this or if her disability benefit was uprated.
8. Dissatisfied with the outcome of her application and her complaint to the Council about it, she complained to us.

Assessment

9. The Council considered all the relevant information but decided Mrs X did not meet the criteria for a Blue Badge. We do not act as an appeal body and can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council made its decision. In this case I do not consider it likely that an investigation would find evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we will find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman