Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject the complainant’s application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to renew his Blue Badge. Mr X wants the Council to issue a new badge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the application, Council assessments and medical evidence. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

5. People qualify for a badge if they are unable to walk, experience considerable difficulty when walking or are at serious risk of harm when walking. People with a hidden disability may qualify if they experience very considerable psychological distress when walking or are at risk of serious harm when walking. To qualify they must provide evidence they experience an overwhelming sense of fear in public, open or busy spaces.
6. Research commissioned by the government before the introduction of the hidden disability rules found that an urgent need for a toilet is unlikely to be helped by a badge. This research forms part of the blue badge guidance which councils must follow.
7. Mr X has a condition which can mean he needs prompt access to toilets. He can experience episodes of incontinence. He applied to renew his badge which had been issued by a different council. Mr X submitted supporting medical evidence from his GP, consultant and partner. Mr X explained that the worry about having prompt access to toilets causes distress and episodes of incontinence have serious psychological consequences.
8. The Council assessed the application under the physical and hidden criteria. The Council considered the medical evidence and noted Mr X does not take any medication for anxiety and is not having any talking therapy. It accepted the incontinence causes some anxiety and distress but decided he does not meet the threshold for a badge. The Council also decided that a slight delay in finding a toilet would not have a serious impact on his health. The Council decided not to issue a badge.
9. I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault by the Council. We are not an appeal body, cannot award a badge, and cannot decide if Mr X is eligible for a badge. I can only consider if there is fault in the way the Council made the decision.
10. The Council considered Mr X’s application, medical information and his statements about the impact on his mental health. It also considered the government guidance. Having considered all the relevant evidence it decided Mr X does not qualify for a badge. Mr X disagrees but that does not mean the Council has done anything wrong. Each application is a new application and will be considered afresh; there is no guarantee that, once awarded, a badge will be renewed. The Council followed the correct process in considering the application so there is no reason to start an investigation.
11. Mr X says the Council wrongly recorded that he has two to four episodes of incontinence a month and failed to correct this on appeal when he explained it happens two to four times a week. The Council did not subsequently comment on this point but says the frequency of the leaks does not alter its view about whether Mr X qualifies for a badge. It has also noted that the consultant’s letter makes no reference to the frequency of the problem.
12. Mr X says his anxiety has increased since his badge expired and he is exploring prescribed medication. This, however, does not mean there was fault in the way the Council assessed the renewal. If there has been a significant change in his circumstances Mr X might be able to submit a fresh application, based on changed circumstances; but it would be for the Council to decide if he can submit a new application and to assess any new application.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman