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

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her son’s, Mr X’s, application for renewal of his 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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. 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. The guidance says councils must make sure they only issue badges to residents who satisfy one or more of the criteria set out in legislation.
8. There are two types of eligibility criteria:

• where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a Blue Badge;
• where a person is eligible subject to further assessment, they have to fulfil one or more of three criteria to qualify for a badge. They must:
• drive a vehicle regularly, have a severe disability in both arms and be unable to operate, or have considerable difficulty operating, all or some types of parking meter; or
• have been certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring or substantial disability, which causes them, during the course of a journey, to be unable to walk or experience very considerable difficulty walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress; or
• be at risk of serious harm when walking, or pose a serious risk of harm to any other person.

9. Mrs X applied to the Council for renewal of her son’s blue badge.
10. The Council refused his application and explained the evidence Mrs X provided did not indicate Mr X meets the DfT’s eligibility criteria for issuing of a blue badge. It provided Mrs X with information about the type of supporting evidence it recommended to be submitted in support of the application.
11. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision and provided information from an advanced pharmacist in support of the application.
12. The Council upheld its decision to refuse the application. It explained there was a lack of medical, educational and specialist evidence to support the application and there was insufficient evidence provided to show Mr X meets the criteria for issuing of a blue badge. It also explained the information from the advanced pharmacist was insufficient and self-reporting. Also, this person is not qualified in the area of diagnosis and so could not comment on Mr X’s function presentation in relation to hidden disabilities.
13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. It assessed, considered and decided the application in line with the relevant DfT guidance and considered the information Mrs X provided in support of the application. It clearly explained its reasons for refusing the application in line with the guidance.
14. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decision. If, as here, we consider there was no fault in the way the decision was made we cannot question the decision even though Mrs X disagrees with it.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman