Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a blue badge application as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Council:
• Failed to provide adequately qualified assessor to consider her application;
• Failed to follow guidance and considered future treatment as part of the assessment as well as her Personal Independence Payment (PIP) score; and
• Failed to provide a proper appeals process, including failing to consider new evidence to support her application.
2. Miss Y feels her appeal was probably unfair and she feels she is isolated without having a blue badge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 or continue 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))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Failed to provide adequately qualified assessor to consider her application

7. Miss Y has complained the assessor who carried out the mobility assessment she attended, was not suitably qualified to consider her application and so was unable to properly consider her health conditions when considering her application.
8. Having looked at the documentation completed as part of the assessment and the accompanying correspondence, the assessment was carried out by an occupational therapist in Miss Y’s case. While Miss Y may have felt assessors had been unable to understand her condition, mobility assessments are typically carried out by those in roles such as occupational therapists. Under the relevant published guidance, this is considered a sufficient qualification to enable assessors to decide on blue badge applications, so we would be unlikely to find fault. We will not investigate.

Failed to follow guidance and considered future treatment as part of the assessment as well as her Personal Independence Payment (PIP) score

9. At the time of her application Miss Y was not receiving PIP. This is relevant to her application, as it is used by councils to determine whether an applicant is eligible with or without further assessment. In this case, Miss Y was potentially eligible with further assessment, and so was invited to attend a mobility assessment face to face. We would not find fault with this approach as it is in accordance with the guidance.
10. I have seen from the forms completed during Miss Y’s assessment, in which the Council has confirmed whether Miss Y was in receipt of PIP. This appears to have been used, not to make the decision about eligibility but to try to understand her difficulties. It may also be used to try to draw out whether a person may have hidden disabilities or other criteria relevant to the assessment. We would not consider it to be fault for including this as part of the overall assessment of her eligibility for a blue badge.
11. The assessor also did consider Miss Y’s future treatment and prosthetic as part of her application. However, this was not the only reason Miss Y’s application was refused. It was also refused for other reasons, such as Miss Y’s ability to walk albeit with some pain, but not such significant pain that she met the criteria set out in the guidance to be eligible for a blue badge. Other relevant factors such as Miss Y not having a history of falls, having good balance and control, and walking not causing an immediate danger to her health were considered. As the future treatment was not the only reason Miss Y’s application was refused, we would be unlikely to find fault as the decision-making process was completed properly and in accordance with guidance.
12. Further, the decision letter explained that Miss Y was yet to complete her treatment, and so without a suitable period to allow for recovery after treatment, her eligibility could not yet be properly determined. In giving this response, the Council has shown its consideration of relevant points as required by the guidance so we would be unlikely to find fault. We will not investigate.

Failed to provide a proper appeals process, including failing to consider new evidence to support her application.

13. After her initial application was rejected by the Council, Miss Y appealed, and provided further letters from medical professionals involved in her care to support her appeal.
14. The Council appointed a different assessor to consider Miss Y’s application to provide her with an independent view on the matter and invited her to provide further evidence if she wished.
15. The Council has shown its consideration of the additional documentation Miss Y provided in its correspondence and in its reassessment of her application. The appeal documents show updated medical information has been included and this was considered as part of the appeal. The Council also made Miss Y aware of the eligibility criteria not being based on a medical diagnosis in an email in April 2023, and outlined the criteria it considered her application against.
16. As the Council has provided Miss Y with an independent consideration of the application, including consideration of the new evidence and an explanation of its criteria and its rationale for not accepting her application, it is unlikely we would find fault in its decision-making process for her appeal. As we would be unlikely to find fault, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman