Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a blue badge. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to renew a blue badge.

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 Mr X and the Council. This includes Mr X’s application, medical evidence and the Council’s assessment. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. People may qualify for a badge if they are unable to walk, experience considerable difficulty when walking or are at serious risk of harm when walking. People with a non-physical disability (sometimes called a hidden disability) might qualify if they demonstrate considerable psychological distress when walking or they are at risk of harm.
6. The blue badge rules say councils should consider to what extent an applicant has existing coping strategies and whether that negates any difficulties the person has. The guidance also says that people who need easy access to a toilet are unlikely to be helped by a badge and are likely to have effective coping strategies in place.
7. Mr X applied for a blue badge under the hidden disability rules and submitted medical evidence; his medical condition includes the need for prompt toilet access.
8. The Council considered the information from Mr X and the medical evidence. The Council decided not to award a badge because there was insufficient evidence that Mr X has problems which mean he cannot access toilets or the wider community. The Council found Mr X has coping in strategies in place which help him manage his condition. For example, Mr X said his wife is always with him when he goes out and provides support. Mr X also reported planning the location of toilets, taking steps to manage his anxiety, and timing outings in relation to fluctuations in his health.
9. I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault. We do not act as an appeal body and can only consider if there is fault in the way the Council made the decision. We have no power to award a badge and it is not my role to re-make the decision or decide if Mr X is eligible for a badge.
10. The Council considered all the evidence and assessed it against the qualifying criteria and the guidance. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the decision, and says his car is essential and is his coping mechanism, but I have not seen anything to suggest fault in the way the Council reached its view. The decision flows from the evidence and the guidance.
11. In addition to disputing the decision, Mr X says the Council should renew his badge and place it on auto-renew. Each badge is awarded for a period of time, usually three years, and there is no provision in the rules for auto-renew. Every repeat application is considered afresh to see if the person still qualifies.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman