Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council rejecting Mr X’s blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to reject his blue badge application. He says he is automatically entitled to a blue badge as he has been awarded personal independence payments.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, 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 the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied for a blue badge. He considers he is automatically eligible for a blue badge as he receives personal independence payment (PIP).
7. Department for Transport has issued guidance on determining eligibility for a blue badge. The guidance notes applicants are only automatically eligible for a blue badge, they must have received the PIP award under planning and following a journey and they must receive a score of 10 points for Descriptor E.
8. The Council explained Mr X’s PIP was awarded under Descriptor D, and therefore he was not automatically eligible for a blue badge. The Council rejected Mr X’s application on this basis. This decision was in line with guidance.
9. The Council then reviewed its decision and considered Mr X’s application via the further assessment criteria. Guidance is clear that to be eligible for a blue badge through this criteria, a person must have an enduring and substantial disability which causes them, during the course of a journey, to be unable to walk or experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress.
10. The Council accepted Mr X’s conditions are enduring. However, the Council said the evidence Mr X provided regarding his medical conditions do not suggest they are currently causing him difficulties to the extent they severely impair his ability to walk or cause him considerable difficulty whilst walking. The Council has clearly outlined to Mr X its reasons for rejecting his blue badge application.
11. The Council’s decision is in line with guidance and there is no evidence to suggest its decision making was flawed. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the way the Council made its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman