Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge. He wants the Council to re-issue a badge.

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 Mr X and the Council. This includes information about Mr X’s previous applications, the medical evidence and correspondence between Mr X and the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. People may qualify for a badge if they are unable to walk, experience considerable difficulty when walking (which can include significant psychological distress) or are at serious risk of harm when walking. People with a non-physical disability (sometimes called a hidden disability) might qualify. People qualify if they get specific points with a benefit called Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
6. The Council issued a badge to Mr X in 2020; in retrospect the Council says it should not have awarded the badge because it did not properly consider all aspects of the application. There is no suggestion Mr X contributed to this error, and he benefitted by having a badge.
7. In 2024 Mr X re-applied under the PIP rules. The Council refused the application because his PIP award does not include the qualifying points for a badge. Mr X re-applied under the walking and hidden disability rules. He submitted evidence relating to his physical walking problems and his hidden disability. The Council had some concerns about some of the supporting evidence because Mr X had completed one of the forms and asked a medical professional to sign it; in response Mr X stressed the professional would not have signed the form unless they agreed with the contents. Mr X subsequently sent another form from the professional. Mr X stressed his condition has not changed and he has struggled since his badge expired earlier this year.
8. The Council considered Mr X’s application, evidence and previous applications. It accepted Mr X has some difficulties but decided that, when all aspects of the claim are considered, Mr X does not meet the criteria for a badge. There has been extensive correspondence in which Mr X has explained why he thinks he qualifies for a badge and from the Council explaining why it disagrees.
9. Mr X’s application is closed but he has appeal rights. The Council invited him to attend a mobility assessment so an assessor can assess his physical walking ability. The Council also sent Mr X another hidden disability assessment form which he can ask a medical professional to complete. This form asks for more detailed information than the ones he has previously submitted.
10. I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault. We are not an appeal body and can only consider if there is fault in the way the Council makes a decision. I have no power to award a badge and it is not my role to re-assess the application or decide if Mr X is eligible for a badge. Further, if we were to investigate the complaint and found fault (and I am not saying there is fault), the most likely outcome would be we would ask the Council to re-assess the claim. But, that route is already open to Mr X through the appeals process.
11. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision and has explained why having a badge is beneficial and why, in his view, he qualifies. However, we can only intervene if there is fault in the way the Council made the decision. I have not seen any evidence of fault. The Council considered all the evidence and the decision it reached is consistent with that evidence and the Blue Badge rules. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s interpretation of the evidence but that disagreement is not an indication of fault. As there is no suggestion of fault there is no reason to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman