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

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to issue his daughter, Miss Y, a blue badge. He said the Council did not fully understand Miss Y’s condition. He said that had caused stress. He wants it to issue 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. 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.
8. In Miss Y’s blue badge application, Mr X explained she experienced pain in her legs and feet. He also said she needed constant supervision when out in the car, because she had phobias that could cause her to panic.
9. The Council considered the information provided but decided Miss Y did not meet the criteria for a blue badge. It said any risks in Miss Y’s behaviour were mitigated by adult supervision.
10. Mr X made several appeals to the Council and included a letter from Miss Y’s consultant supporting the blude badge application.
11. The Council considered the evidence provided. It decided Miss Y was not eligible for a blue badge as:
• It was satisfied Miss X could walk independently, without pain relief and did so on a regular basis. It accepted she may experience some pain but said there was nothing to suggest she experienced considerable difficulties when walking.
• It accepted her phobias could cause her to panic, but that did not affect her ability to walk. It said she could continue journeys with support and reassurance. It said she did not consider she met the criteria for considerable psychological distress.
• It recognised Miss Y has limited understanding of road safety, however said adult supervision minimised any risk of harm.
12. Although Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision, we will not investigate this complaint. The Council considered Miss Y’s application in line with the relevant guidance and considered the evidence provided. It also sought additional information from Miss Y’s college. The Council has set out its reason why it does not consider Miss Y is eligible for a blude badge. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made that decision to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr 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