Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide him with a blue badge. This is because it is unlikely any further investigation by the Ombudsman could add to the Council’s response or provide Mr B with the outcome he wants.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council should give him a blue badge because he suffers with Autism and Asperger’s syndrome and would benefit from it when shopping to minimise his contact with other people. Mr B says the Council has not considered his hidden disabilities and says it has twisted the words of his GP. Mr B says the Council’s review processes were not clear and were conflicting.

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 fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information and documentation Mr B provided. I sent Mr B a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B complained to the Council that it had not properly considered his hidden disabilities or the supporting letter from his GP when considering his application for a blue badge. Mr B says he cannot provide the Council with other evidence because he does not have any.
5. Some people are automatically entitled to a blue badge (without further assessment). They must be over two years old and fall within one of the following categories:

• receives the Higher Rate of the Mobility Component of the Disability Living Allowance (HRMCDLA); or
• receives eight points or more under the “moving around” activity of the mobility component of Personal Independence Payment (PIP); or
• receives 10 points or more, specifically for Descriptor E, “planning and following journeys” activity of the mobility component of PIP; or
• is registered blind (severely sight impaired); or
• receives a War Pensioner’s Mobility Supplement (WPMS); or
• has been awarded both a lump sum benefit at tariffs 1-8 of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and certified as having a permanent and substantial disability which causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.

6. If a person does not automatically qualify for a blue badge, they may be eligible subject to further assessment. Mr B comes into this category. To qualify under these criteria, an applicant must be more than two years old and fall within one or more of the following descriptions:

• drives a vehicle regularly, has a severe disability in both arms and is unable to operate, or has considerable difficulty in operating, all or some types of parking meter; or
• has been certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring and substantial disability which causes then, during the course of a journey, to:
1. Be unable to walk;
2. Experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress; or
3. Be at risk of serious harm when walking; or pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to any other person.

The disability experienced by the applicant must have endured for at least three years.

7. In respect of both physical disabilities or non-visible conditions, other where a council cannot reach a view based on the applicants evidence, it would be expected to appoint an expert assessor The guidance does not allow for the applicants GP to be an expert assessor.
8. The Council confirmed Mr B’s application was considered by an expert assessor and reviewed by an Occupational Therapist. Upon appeal Mr B’s case was considered by a Clinical Lead Occupational Therapist, who determined Mr B does not meet the criteria for a blue badge.
9. While the Council has accepted there was some discrepancies with the wording of the review process literature, it has now amended this to explain in detail what can and cannot be considered. The Ombudsman is satisfied this has now been remedied. The Ombudsman cannot be critical of a council because a person disagrees with the decision, there has to be fault with the way the decision was reached. While Mr B says the Council did not properly consider his GP’s supporting letter, the Council has confirmed it has but it cannot accept this on its own. Mr B says he does not have any other supporting evidence to provide to the Council. In the absence of evidence the Ombudsman could not say the decision not to provide Mr B with a blue badge is fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely any further investigation by the Ombudsman could add to the Council’s response or provide Mr B with the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman