Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s Blue Badge application process and its decision to refuse her application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X has a life-long disability. She applied to the Council to renew a Blue Badge parking permit. Miss X complains the Council:
1. failed to listen to her, was unhelpful and unclear when she asked what evidence they needed, and did an inadequate telephone assessment during its consideration of her application;
2. ignored her concerns about having a face-to-face assessment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered information from Miss X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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. It does this by allowing them, or their carer, to park near their destination. The scheme gives parking concessions to Blue Badge holders. Councils are responsible for the administration and enforcement of the scheme, including assessing applicants’ eligibility for the badge.
6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
7. Miss X was not receiving a benefit which meant she was automatically eligible for a badge without further assessment. The Council was required to assess the information she provided about her conditions and mobility, to see if she was eligible for a badge after further assessment. To be eligible, Miss X needed to be assessed as having an enduring or substantial disability which caused her, during a journey, to be unable to walk or experience very considerable difficulty walking, or be at risk of serious harm when walking, or pose a serious risk of harm to others.
8. Miss X complains that during its assessment of her application the Council did not listen to her, tell her what information it needed, or do an adequate telephone assessment with her. The Council’s correspondence with Miss X sets out its reasons why its officers considered she did not meet the eligibility criteria for a Blue Badge. Officers reviewed the supporting evidence Miss X submitted. The information she provided in writing and during the telephone discussion did not, in their assessment, demonstrate she met the eligibility criteria to qualify for a Blue Badge. Officers There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment process here to justify an investigation. We recognise Miss X disagrees with the decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. We note Miss X says she does not receive medical or other support and services for her conditions so could not provide recent written evidence to the Council for her application. Officers must base their assessment on the evidence available to them. It is for the applicant to submit evidence they consider supports their application, not for officers to pursue it.
10. We also recognise Miss X has a long-term disability which will worsen with time. But Blue Badge eligibility is not determined by someone having a particular condition. Eligibility is determined by assessment of the applicant’s mobility and how their health and conditions affect their ability to walk, and their risks of serious harm when walking, should they not have a Blue Badge.
11. If Miss X believes there is further relevant information about the impacts of her conditions on her mobility, she can make a fresh application, submitting any new information to the Council for consideration. It would be reasonable for her to do this because it is the Council which is the authority with the powers to decide to issue the Blue Badge Miss X seeks.
12. The Council offered Miss X a face-to-face assessment of her mobility as part of her application. She raised various reasons why she could or should not attend which she says the Council ignored. But the Council did not ignore her comments. It replied explaining that this was one of the ways officers could gather more evidence about her mobility and reassess its decision on her application. It is for Miss X to decide whether to attend the assessment offered but it was not fault for the Council to offer her one. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it dealt with this part of the process to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman