Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful 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 Ms X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge. Her previous badge expired earlier this year and Ms X says she cannot cope without it.

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 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

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the application, medical evidence and assessment report. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Ms X to comment on 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. This can include people who experience considerable psychological distress when walking. The latter applies to people who may have what is referred to as a hidden disability such as epilepsy or dementia.
6. The guidance says councils should consider any coping mechanisms people have in place. This can include people being accompanied on journeys.
7. Ms X applied for a Blue Badge. She explained she has mental heath problems and problems going out. She said she cannot go out without the support of another person. She submitted some medical evidence.
8. The Council did a mobility assessment. The assessor considered Ms X’s medical history and medical evidence. He noted that Ms X reported she does not go out alone and he noted the other strategies she uses when she goes out. He considered the qualifying conditions for a badge in relation to hidden disabilities and, while accepting Ms X experiences some difficulties and needs support from others, found that she had not met the threshold to qualify for a badge. The Council decided not to award a badge.
9. Ms X disagrees with the decision. She says her health has not improved since the badge was first awarded.
10. I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault. We do not act as an appeal body and I can only consider if there is fault in the way the Council has made a decision. I have no power to issue a badge or to over-turn the Council’s decision, and it is not my role to decide if Ms X is eligible for a badge.
11. The Council explored Ms X’s health issues and all the relevant qualifying criteria for a badge in relation to a hidden disability. It was aware Ms X had stated she does not go out alone which is something councils are required to take into account. I appreciate Ms X disagrees with the decision and feels the loss of the badge has had a negative impact – but I have not identified any fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. 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