Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to renew her Blue Badge. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has refused to renew her Blue Badge. She says this causes inconvenience and puts her assistance dog at risk. She wants the Council to provide her with a 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 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))

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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I considered the Department of Transport Blue Badge Scheme guidance.

Back to top

My assessment

7. People may qualify for a Blue Badge if they are unable to walk, experience very considerable difficulty when walking (which can include significant psychological distress) or are at serious risk of harm when walking. Blue Badges are issued for a period of three years.
8. The Council has previously issued Ms X with a Blue Badge. Ms X applied to renew her Blue Badge and the Council considered her application. It decided she did not meet the eligibility criteria and so it would not renew her Blue Badge. Ms X appealed the decision, but the Council did not change its position.
9. In its decision letter to Ms X, the Council explained its reasons for refusing her application. It said she did not meet the criteria, as the evidence provided did not indicate that she was unable to walk, had very considerable difficulty when walking (which may include very considerable psychological distress) or was at risk of harm when walking. It acknowledged her concerns related to her assistance dog, but said the Blue Badge eligibility criteria did not include consideration of auxiliary aids or parking bay requirements.
10. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Blue Badge guidance states councils should assess eligibility based on ability to walk and does not include consideration of parking requirements, other aids, or assistance animals. The Council’s decision appears in line with the Blue Badge guidance. Although I accept Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision, we cannot question it where there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it was reached.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman