Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to decline her blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to decline her blue badge application. She also complains the Council delayed in responding to her complaint.

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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessmen

6. Miss X applied for a blue badge. She says the Council failed to consider her walking difficulties and mental health conditions, and its impact on her ability to function and leave the house. She also complained the Council did not give her the opportunity to explain during her face-to-face assessment.
7. The Council completed a telephone assessment and face-to-face assessment before decided Miss X did not meet the eligibility criteria for a blue badge. The record of assessments shows clearly the information the Council considered, including the medical evidence submitted by Miss X, the impact of her medical conditions on her ability to walk and go out, and the anxiety she suffers from when her symptoms are most severe. The assessments also noted the use of mobility aids and coping mechanisms for when she is out walking. The Council noted that a blue badge would not improve Miss X’s access to facilities and services, particularly on days when she has to remain at home due to her symptoms.
8. For the face-to-face assessment, the record noted Miss X was observed:
• To mobilise indoors and outdoors with a walking stick.
• To walk a distance of 125 metres at a slow pace, with a normal gait and no rest.
• To be able to walk and talk, with her tone of voice remaining the same.
• Not to have any pain or discomfort when walking, nor any breathlessness.
9. During its complaint investigation, the Council accepted that some of Miss X’s medical evidence was not considered during her appeal. However, this was passed to their medical advisor to consider, who confirmed it did not affect their recommendation that Miss X did not meet the eligibility criteria for a blue badge.
10. The Council accepted that Miss X experiences physical and mental health difficulties when travelling. However, the Council was not satisfied the evidence supported that Miss X has very considerable difficulty whilst walking, nor from very considerable psychological distress when walking.
11. The Council has properly considered Miss X’s evidence and comments about the impact of her medical conditions on her ability to walk. The Council is entitled to make its decision and I am satisfied the decision made is in line with the Department of Transport blue badge guidance. Where the Council has made its decision properly, we cannot find fault with the decision itself. Therefore, an investigation is not proportionate.
12. Where we are not investigating the substantive matters complained about, we will not investigate solely to consider the Council’s handling of a complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman