Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to issue him a blue badge. He said it did not properly consider the evidence provided. He said it failed to recognise the difficulties his diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) caused for him. He wants the Council to issue him a blue badge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Blue Badges help people with disabilities or health conditions park closer to their destination. The Department for Transport sets out how councils should consider applications for a blue badge. There are two types of eligibility, people who automatically qualify and those who qualify after further assessment. Applicants may qualify after further assessment if they have any enduring (lasting for at least three years) and substantial disability that means they are, during a journey, at risk of serious harm, when walking, or pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to themselves or any other person.
7. In Mr X’s application for a blue badge, he said he experienced very considerable distress when walking, or taking a journey. The Council decided Mr X did not meet the eligibility criteria for a blude badge. Mr X appealed.
8. As part of the appeal the Council considered information provided by Mr X in his initial application, in his appeal submissions and evidence he provided from his psychiatrist and doctor. The Council recognised the diagnosis of ADHD and the difficulties this presented Mr X, however, it said there was no evidence Mr X experienced very considerable psychological distress when walking, and that he did not pose a risk of serious harm to himself or others. Therefore, he was not eligible for a blue badge.
9. 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.
10. The Council considered Mr X’s application in line with the relevant guidance and considered the evidence provided. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s blue badge application to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman