Summary: The complaint is about the Council refusing a blue badge application. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council acted wrongly in refusing his application for a blue badge. He states this makes it difficult to do his job.

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 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

3. I considered the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him. I also considered some of the documents related to the application and decision, which the Council sent me. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X has had an ileostomy. He works as a driver. He needs to visit a toilet often to urinate or to deal with his ileostomy bag, which can overflow. Mr X states it is difficult to do his job without a blue badge enabling him to park on yellow lines when he has to get to a toilet quickly.
5. In late 2019 and early 2020, the Council assessed Mr X’s application for a blue badge, including at a face-to-face assessment. It refused the application. The Council upheld the refusal when Mr X asked it to review its decision.
6. To get a blue badge, someone must, because of a visible or hidden disability: be unable to walk; experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress; be at risk of serious harm when walking; or pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to any other person.
7. So having either a visible or hidden disability does not automatically entitle someone to a blue badge. The Council must judge the applicant’s eligibility in each case. The Ombudsman could only criticise the Council if it did not properly reach that judgement, as paragraph 2 explained.
8. Mr X argues the Council did not properly understand his hidden disability and related needs. The evidence I have seen shows the Council noted the medical information Mr X provided. The Council representative who met Mr X as part of the assessment noted:

‘[Mr X] has mild difficulties walking and during the assessment was experiencing some pain…The main reason for requesting a BB [blue badge] is on the grounds of a Hidden Disability – urgent need to use the toilet and to empty Ileostomy bag and replace as it tends to come off when full. He reports this happens quite frequently…’

‘A BB is declined as it does not guarantee being able to quickly park close to a toilet…’

9. The Council’s decision letter to Mr X said, ‘Your main reason for applying for a blue badge was due to an ongoing condition that means you need urgent access to a toilet at short notice. A blue badge itself would not directly benefit you to achieve this.’
10. The Council’s review decision also referred to hidden disabilities. It said Mr X’s case did not meet the level for a blue badge and repeated that, while Mr X can urgently need to use the toilet, a blue badge itself would not guarantee urgent access to a toilet.
11. Responding to a draft of this decision, Mr X argued if he had a blue badge he could park right outside a toilet. However, that would not necessarily be the case. It would depend on where the nearest public toilet was when Mr X needed it and on where he could park. For example, even a blue badge holder cannot park where there is a loading ban; in residents’ bays or loading bays; on pedestrian crossings, clearways, bus, tram or cycle lanes; on a bend; near a hill brow; opposite or within 10 metres of a junction; in places where parking would hold up traffic; at a lowered kerb; on a pavement; or where emergency vehicles enter or exit, among other places. So I am not persuaded Mr X’s argument undermines the Council’s point that a blue badge would not guarantee being able to park quickly close to a toilet.
12. Mr X’s response to my draft decision also stated he has kidney stones, which can cause him to be bent over in pain. At the mobility assessment, the Council’s representative noted Mr X had kidney stones, assessed his level of pain while walking and noted Mr X reported the pain levels were variable. So the Council considered the information it had at the time about the kidney stones when assessing Mr X’s level of difficulty whilst walking.
13. The evidence I have seen suggests the Council considered the government’s guidance and the information Mr X provided about his circumstances and recognised that he had a hidden disability and how this affected him. Therefore, the information I have seen does not suggest fault in how the Council reached its decision that Mr X’s circumstances did not warrant a blue badge. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with that decision. However, as paragraph 2 explained, that does not enable me to criticise the decision. Therefore I shall not investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council on the evidence we have seen.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman