Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a blue badge parking permit. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X is receiving treatment for a diagnosed medical condition. He complains the Council unfairly rejected his application for a blue badge parking permit.
2. Mr X says the decision leaves him unable to have his mobility difficulties alleviated by having the blue badge. He feels dependent on others for basic tasks. Mr X feels stressed and worried about missing or being late for medical appointments, which he says is affecting his mental wellbeing. He says the application process took an emotional toll on him and he feels victimised.
3. Mr X wants the Council to review his blue badge application with fairness and compassion. He wants the medical evidence he has provided to be at the centre of the review, and for it to take account of his changing condition because of his ongoing treatment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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))
5. We consider whether there was fault in how 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

6. I considered information from Mr X, national government guidance on blue badge applications, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We are not an appeal body. This means we may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following the proper process.
8. The Council’s first decision letter on Mr X’s blue badge application advises the impact on the applicant’s mobility must be ‘enduring and substantial’. The assessor decided there was insufficient evidence that Mr X’s medical condition and treatment affected his mobility or his psychological ability to manage journeys to the extent he would be entitled to a blue badge. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision. The Council’s review decision noted that under national government guidance, eligibility for a blue badge is not solely determined by the absence or presence of a particular medical diagnosis or condition. To be found eligible on mobility grounds, an applicant would need to have an enduring and substantial disability which meant they cannot walk or leads to very considerable difficulty when they are walking. Based on the information Mr X submitted, the Council determined the impacts of his medical condition and treatment on his mobility were not significant enough to make him eligible for a blue badge. The assessor also determined there was insufficient evidence of Mr X having a hidden psychological disability which suggested he could not plan and follow a journey or travel independently. The assessor upheld the original refusal decision.
9. The Council took account of Mr X’s evidence on his medical and psychological circumstances and their impacts on his physical mobility or whether they affected his ability to travel safely. Officers considered the relevant evidence and applied the national government guidance on eligibility for the badge when making their decision. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision‑making process here to warrant us going behind its decision and investigating. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. Mr X may reapply for a blue badge six months after the Council’s last decision. We understand his mobility and wellbeing may be further affected by his ongoing medical condition and its treatments. If Mr X considers his physical or psychological condition worsens to the extent that he may be eligible for a blue badge before six months has passed, he might reapply to the Council sooner. If he does so, he should provide officers with all new information he has about any issues affecting his mobility. It would then be for Council officers to consider that information in the first instance as part of any new and valid blue badge application.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman