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. In addition, there is no significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to decline her blue badge application.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X applied for a blue badge under the walking disability criteria. Information within her application form indicated Miss X also suffered from a hidden disability – vision impairment.
6. The Council explained its process was that any application submitted under the hidden disability criteria must be supported by a supplementary hidden disability evidence form, completed by a professional. A cover letter from the professional is also required.
7. The Council said Miss X asked the Council to proceed with her application only under the walking disability criteria as she was not able to provide the required supplementary hidden disability evidence form completed by a relevant professional. The Council said as Miss X was unable to provide this information, it could not proceed with her application under the hidden disability criteria.
8. The Council explained to us that had it assessed Miss X’s application under the hidden disabilities criteria, officers would have considered Miss X’s own view in relation to the impact of her disability. The Council said Miss X indicated she never, or rarely, experienced severe or overwhelming psychological distress, or an overwhelming fear of being in public. The Council was also satisfied Miss X had an effective coping strategy in place as she noted she was always accompanied when walking by a family member.
9. The Department of Transport blue badge guidance notes authorities will need to be satisfied that such difficulties cannot otherwise be managed through reasonable coping strategies. The guidance also notes that in considering coping strategies, local authorities should consider whether existing strategies are being adopted and are effective.
10. Therefore, while the Council did not assess Miss X’s application under the hidden disabilities criteria due to Miss X not providing the required supporting information, I am satisfied there is no significant injustice as the Council has evidenced its reasons for why it would still have declined the application.
11. Miss X’s application was assessed under the physical mobility criteria. Miss X was asked to attend an independent mobility assessment. The assessor’s professional opinion was there was not a significant restriction to her physical mobility. Therefore, Miss X’s application was declined.
12. Miss X appealed and the Council completed another assessment as part of the appeal. Miss X’s mobility was observed during the assessment and the assessor’s professional opinion was there was not a significant restriction to her physical mobility.
13. Each assessment was completed appropriately and in line with DfE guidance in relation to physical mobility. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, there is no significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman