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

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her son’s blue badge application. She says the Council has not properly considered the impact of her son’s medical conditions.

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))

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. Mrs X said the Council’s decision is flawed as her son, Mr Z, has automatic eligibility for a blue badge due to his personal independence payment (PIP) award of 12 points under ‘planning and following a journey’. Mr Z received descriptor E which is ‘you cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog, or an orientation aid’.
6. The Department of Transport blue badge guidance is clear that automatic eligibility is only for individuals who have received 10 points specifically for descriptor E under ‘planning and following a journey. Descriptor E is ‘cannot undertake any journey because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant.’ Therefore, Mr Z is not automatically eligible for a blue badge as he did not meet the required criteria.
7. The Council considered Mr Z’s application under the ‘subject to further assessment criteria’. The assessor accepted Mr Z had diagnosis of severe learning difficulties, Autism, and generalised seizure. The assessor considered the evidence provided of Mr Z’s PIP award and a final education, health, and care (ECH) plan. The assessor noted:
• The EHC plan was severely outdated as it was finalised in 2018. Therefore, it could not be accepted as representative of Mr Z’s current function and difficulties.
• There were no other specialist evidence to support the application.
• That while Mr Z’s main communication method was sign language and that he may have difficulties recognising road safety issues, there was no submitted evidence to suggest Mr Z could not understand and respond appropriately to road safety issues when prompted.
• There was no evidence to suggest any recent episodes of seizures.
• No evidence to state that Mr Z’s anxiety caused him considerable psychological distress or puts him at serious risk of harm to himself or others when taking a journey.
8. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault with the way the Council considered Mr Z’s blue badge application. It is for the Council to determine if they are satisfied there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the criteria for a blue badge is met. As the Council has properly considered the evidence provided, it is allowed to make its decision.
9. I recognise that Mrs X considers the EHC plan to be relevant evidence of her son’s difficulties. However, the Council is allowed to decide the evidence is outdated. It is open to Mrs X to provide the Council with more up to date evidence to support her son’s application.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman