Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge under the hidden disability rules.

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 the medical evidence, Council assessment and the decision letters. 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 severe psychological distress while walking or are at serious risk of harm while walking or pose a risk to others. Not everyone with a hidden disability will qualify for a badge.
6. People qualify if they get specific points/descriptors with a benefit called Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
7. Mr X applied for a badge under the hidden disability rules. He explained his medical conditions and the problems he experiences. He submitted some evidence that verified his medical conditions and medication. Mr X submitted a letter showing he receives PIP; the level of PIP is not one that means Mr X automatically qualifies for a badge.
8. The Council assessed the application but, while it recognised Mr X has medical conditions, it decided there was no evidence to demonstrate he meets the criteria for a badge under the hidden disability rules. The Council explained Mr X could make an application under the walking criteria as he had referred to some physical problems that affect his mobility.
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 made the 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.
10. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision and has explained how having a badge would help. 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 information and decided to reject the application because there was no evidence showing Mr X experiences significant psychological distress while walking or is at risk of serious harm while walking. I have considered the evidence Mr X submitted, and the hidden disability rules, and I have not identified any fault in the way the Council reached this decision.

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