Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to decline his son’s blue badge renewal. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to decline his son’s blue badge renewal.

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 assessment

6. Mr X’s son, Mr Z, was previously awarded a blue badge. Mr X applied for a renewal of the blue badge.
7. The Council declined to award Mr Z a blue badge. The Council asked a medical advisor to assess the information provided. The medical advisor considered the information contained within the application form and the medical evidence provided by Mr X. In making their decision, the advisor noted:
• Mr Z did have a diagnosis of learning disabilities and other medical conditions as stated by Mr X.
• Recognised Mr Z did not always understand the meaning of words or commands and that things needed to be explained in simple words.
• The medical evidence provided was limited in detail regarding how Mr Z’s medical conditions affect his communication, cognition, behaviour, and independence.
• Acknowledged Mr Z had some communication difficulties but there was no evidence of a severe speech and language impairment, severe communication, or comprehension difficulties.
8. The medical assessor concluded there was no evidence of severely challenging behaviour or severe psychological distress in the context of travel. Therefore, no evidence Mr Z had very considerable psychological distress when walking or taking a journey, or that they are a risk of serious harm to themselves or others in the context of travel.
9. Blue badge guidance details that people who may be issued with a badge after further assessment are those who are more than three years old and may be described as one or more of the following:
• a person who has been certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring and substantial disability which causes them, during the course of a journey, to be unable to walk, experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress
• in addition, they may be at risk of serious harm when walking - or pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to any other person
10. We are not an appeal body. This means we cannot review the information and replace the Council’s decision with our own decision. Instead, our role is to review whether the Council has properly considered all relevant information and followed a proper decision-making process before making its decision.
11. In this case, the evidence shows the Council considered all relevant information as it considered the information contained in the application form and the medical evidence Mr X provided. The assessor has set out their decision as to why they do not consider the medical evidence shows that Mr Z has an enduring and substantial disability which causes him, during the course of a journey, to experience very considerable difficult whilst walking or caused very considerable psychological distress.
12. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with this and considers this to be a contradiction because a previous medical assessor had agreed there was sufficient evidence to support eligibility for a blue badge. However, previous successful applications do not guarantee future applications will be successful, nor does a previous decision set a precedent for future decisions. Instead, each decision is considered on its own merits.
13. In this case, the medical assessor is allowed to reach a professional judgment based on their consideration of the available evidence and evidence show a proper decision-making process was followed to reach the decision. Therefore, we cannot criticise or find fault with the decision itself.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman