Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s decision not to aware a blue badge. She said it had not properly considered information provided by her psychiatrist. She wants the Council to review its decision and issue her a blue badge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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))

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. Miss X applied for a blue badge because of the psychological distress caused by taking journeys. Miss X was not automatically eligible for a badge, therefore, the Council completed a further assessment. As part of that assessment, the Council requested additional information from Miss X’s psychiatrist. The Council decided Miss X was not eligible for a blue badge. Miss X appealed.
8. As part of the appeal the Council considered information provided by Miss X in her initial application, spoke to her on the telephone to help understand the difficulties she faced when making a journey and considered information provided by her psychiatrist. The Council recognised Miss X’s diagnosis and the difficulties these presented on journeys; however, it said Miss X used a range of coping strategies and with these, there was insufficient evidence her difficulties severely impaired her ability to walk short distances. Therefore, she was not eligible for a blue badge.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. That means we will not take another look at a decision and come to our own conclusions. Instead, we look at the process the Council followed when it made its decision. If we consider it followed these processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
10. The Council considered Miss X’s application and the evidence provided. It sought additional information from Miss X’s psychiatrist and Miss X where necessary. It considered how coping strategies acted as an aid to Miss X. It set out its reasons why Miss X was not eligible for a blue badge in line with the relevant guidance. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered the blue badge application to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman