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 renew his Blue 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’s representative and the Council. This includes the application, medical evidence and the Council’s decision. 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 or are at serious risk of harm when walking. People with a non-physical disability (sometimes called a hidden disability) might qualify if they experience very considerable psychological distress whilst walking or are at serious risk of harm to themselves or others. The difficulties must mean the applicant cannot access goods or services. The guidance says councils should take into account any coping mechanisms a person has in place and whether that reduces the distress or risks.
6. People qualify if they get specific points with a benefit called Personal Independence Payment (PIP). The Council previously gave Mr X a badge because he received a benefit which is similar to PIP. Mr X has since transferred to PIP but no longer automatically qualifies for a badge because the PIP rules are different. The Council correctly decided not to renew the badge on this basis.
7. Mr X applied under the hidden disability rules and provided some evidence; his representative explained that Mr X never goes out alone and is always accompanied.
8. The Council assessed Mr X’s application under the hidden disability rules. This included considering the application, evidence and information from his GP. The Council decided the evidence does not show Mr X reaches the threshold to qualify for a badge under the hidden disability rules. The Council noted Mr X’s difficulties but said the evidence does not show that these difficulties prevent him from making accompanied journeys or keeping himself safe, with support. The Council decided not to award a badge.
9. I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault. We do not act as an appeal body and I 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 claim or decide if Mr X is eligible for a badge.
10. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision and has explained how having a badge helped before it expired. However, we can only intervene if there is fault in the way the Council made the decision and 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; and it is correct that councils must take into consideration existing coping mechanisms. As there is no suggestion of fault there is no reason to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman