Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to decline his 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 decline his blue badge application.

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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied for a blue badge in September 2023. He provided supporting evidence of his medical conditions with his application. He also submitted a video of himself mobilising on the stairs as requested by the Council.
7. Mr X did not meet the automatic eligibility criteria for a blue badge. Therefore, the Council assessed Mr X under its subject to further assessment criteria.
8. To qualify under that criteria, an applicant must evidence they 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; or
• be at risk of serious harm when walking; or
• pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to any other person.
9. At the end of September, the Council decided Mr X did not meet the eligibility criteria for a blue badge as the evidence did not suggest very considerable difficulty whilst walking or an inability to walk. Mr X challenged this decision and the Council offered to complete a face-to-face assessment with a new assessor.
10. The record of the face-to-face assessment noted Mr X was observed to walk a distance of 80 metres at a very slow place, with some pain and discomfort observed. Also noted that while Mr X was breathing heavily, there was no breathlessness and Mr X was able to talk in a normal tone. The assessor also noted Mr X was asked to use the stairs, but that Mr X noted his heart was beating very fast and would only be able to manage a few.
11. The assessor noted the evidence showed Mr X had some difficulty travelling and accessing services. However, the level of walking difficulty demonstrated at the assessment did not meet the eligibility criteria for a blue badge.
12. An investigation is not justified as we are unlikely to find fault with the way the Council considered Mr X’s blue badge application. While Mr X was not observed to use the stairs at the face-to-face assessment, I am satisfied this would not affect the decision made. This is because the Council had video evidence of Mr X using the stairs at home and so the Council had full information to complete its assessment of Mr X’s mobility. Therefore, the Council properly considered all the relevant evidence before making its decision.
13. As there is no evidence the Council’s decision making was flawed, we would not be able to find fault with the decision itself.

Back to top

Final decision

14. 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