Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to grant a blue badge. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council failed to offer him an assessment for his blue badge application and has not explained why. Mr B says the Council has not properly considered his medical evidence and failed to contact medical professionals to gather further evidence. Mr B says the Council has made the wrong decision, is biased and discriminatory. Mr B says the Council’s failure to properly consider his application causes him distress; he wants an apology, compensation, and relevant staff to receive training to improve service.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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. Blue Badges help people with disabilities or health conditions park closer to their destination. The Department for Transport sets out how councils should consider applications for a blue badge. There are two types of eligibility, people who automatically qualify and those who qualify after further assessment. Applicants may qualify after further assessment if they have any enduring (lasting for at least three years) and substantial disability that means they are, during a journey, at risk of serious harm, when walking, or pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to themselves or any other person.
7. If the Council cannot decide the application based on the information provided by the applicant and any evidence from health or social care professionals, then it should make a referral to an expert assessor.
8. The Council was satisfied it could reach a decision on Mr B’s application based on the information he provided, without the need for an expert assessment. The Council does not consider Mr B’s evidence supports he has an enduring and substantial disability. The Council has fully explained its reasons to Mr B, including at review.
9. Mr B remains unhappy with the Council’s decision and wants us to find it at fault. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision if there is no evidence of fault in the way the decision was made. The Council has considered Mr B’s application in line with the relevant guidance and considered the medical information he provided. Having followed the correct process, the Council has decided Mr B does not qualify for a blue badge and it was entitled to make this decision.
10. It is for the applicant to provide any relevant supporting evidence; it is not fault that the Council has not contacted Mr B’s medical professionals as he wanted it to.
11. There is not enough evidence to support any bias or discrimination by the Council. It has followed the correct process to decide Mr B’s application.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman