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

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to award her a blue badge. She said the Council had overlooked her hidden disabilities and instead focussed on her physical ability to walk.
2. Mrs X also complained about the actions of Council Officers dealing with her application. She said an Officer asked her to complete a second mobility assessment unnecessarily, whilst another misused personal information in an email they sent her.
3. Mrs X wants an apology; for the Council to review its blue badge decision and and compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Department for Transport’s (DfT) Blue Badge Scheme helps people with severe physical mobility problems, or other conditions affecting their mobility, to access goods and services. Since August 2019 the guidance has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
9. Some people are automatically eligible for a blude badge without assessment. For other applicants, they must either:
• drive a vehicle regularly, have a severe disability in both arms and be unable to operate, or have considerable difficulty operating, all or some types of parking meter; or
• have a permanent and substantial physical or hidden disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.
10. Mrs X applied for a blue badge at the end of 2023. The Council considered information Mrs X provided in her application and supporting medical evidence. It completed a mobility assessment. It did not assess her as having a substantial difficulty when walking. Mrs X appealed that decision. She said the Council had not considered her psychological difficulties. She also complained.
11. The Council did not uphold the appeal. It wrote to Mrs X setting out the reasons why. The Council’s complaint response explained it had considered Mrs X under mobility eligibility as that was what she had applied under. It said Mrs X would need to make a separate application for consideration under hidden disability criteria.
12. Mrs X made a further application. The Council considered the information she provided but decided not to issue a blue badge. In the Council’s response to Mrs X’s appeal, it accepted Mrs X experienced distress when walking, however, did not assess the as causing “considerable distress”. It wrote to Mrs X and said she was not eligible under the hidden disability criteria. It set out its reasons for this.
13. Although Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s decision, we will not investigate. The Council has considered Mrs X’s initial applications, additional supporting information and medical evidence. It has followed its appeals process, applied the statutory guidance and set out why Mrs X is not eligible. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it made that decision to justify our involvement.
14. We will also not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about Council Officers involved in the decision making. The Council’s stage two response explained it asked Mrs X to complete a further mobility assessment so it could consider the effects Mrs X’s neurodiversity had on her ability to walk. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
15. The Council Officer apologised to Mrs X about their communication with her. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome. If Mrs X is unhappy with how the Council has used her personal information, she can escalate her concerns to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO is best placed for dealing with complaints about breaches of data protection.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs 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