Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not assess his application for a blue badge properly. He complained the Council did not understand his situation and did not have all the information it needed to make a decision. Mr X says this has affected his mental health. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not assess his application for a blue badge properly. He complained the Council did not understand his situation and did not have all the information it needed to make a decision. Mr X says this has affected his mental health.

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 the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a Council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke to him about it on the phone.
5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

7. The Department for Transport’s (DfT) Blue Badge Scheme helps people with severe physical mobility problems, or other conditions affecting their mobility, to access goods and services. It does this by allowing them, or their carer, to park near their destination. The scheme gives parking concessions to Blue Badge holders. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing applicants’ eligibility for the badge.
8. Since August 2019 the guidance has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
9. The DfT guidance sets out what assessors may wish to consider when assessing a person’s mobility. The guidance is non-statutory. This means Councils do not have to follow it, but most Councils do. We expect councils to explain if they decide not to follow such guidance.
10. The guidance says Councils must make sure they only issue badges to residents who satisfy one or more of the criteria set out in legislation.
11. There are two types of eligibility criteria:
12. Where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a Blue Badge;
13. Where a person is eligible subject to further assessment, they have to fulfil one of two criteria to qualify for a badge. They must:

• drive a vehicle regularly, have a severe disability in both arms and be unable to operate, or have considerable difficulty operating, all or some types of parking meter; OR

• have a permanent and substantial physical or hidden disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.

14. Applicants who can walk more than 80 metres and do not display very considerable difficulty walking for any other reason, including very considerable psychological distress, or serious risk to themselves or others, would not be eligible. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.

What happened

15. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
16. Mr X sustained a knee injury in August 2021. A letter from his doctor in November 2021 confirmed the injury and that surgery would be required. Mr X was placed on a waiting list for the operation.
17. In August 2022, Mr X applied for a blue badge. He explained he was starting university and required the badge to park near to classes to minimize walking and pain in his knee. The Council considered the request and responded after ten days. The response quoted the DfT guidance and confirmed Mr X did not meet the criteria and declined his application. The Council provided details of how to appeal against its decision.
18. Mr X wrote to the Council and requested it reviewed the decision.
19. The Council considered the additional information Mr X provided and wrote to him at the end of August. The Council confirmed Mr X did not meet the eligibility criteria and upheld its decision to decline the application.
20. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Mr X would like the Council to reconsider his application and issue a blue badge.
21. In response to my enquiries the Council stated it had considered all the information Mr X had provided for his application and appeal, but assessed he was not eligible for a blue badge.

My findings

22. The Council considered all the evidence provided by Mr X for the initial blue badge application. It decided he did not meet the criteria set out in the government guidance. I have found no fault in the Councils actions in making a decision on the application.
23. The Council’s decision letter gave Mr X appeal rights. Mr X exercised his right of appeal. It was conducted appropriately and took into account all relevant information. The Council explained in the appeal decision the information provided did not prove he met the criteria for a blue badge. It reached and explained its decision in accordance with statutory guidance. We cannot question a decision which has been made appropriately. I appreciate this is not the response Mr X wanted, but I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council.
24. I recognise the situation has been challenging for Mr X and he will be disappointed with the Council’s decision. I cannot question a decision the Council made if it followed the right procedure. I am satisfied the Council properly considered both Mr X’s application and appeal. There is no evidence of fault in the actions taken by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman