Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council refused him a Blue Badge. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council refused to give him a Blue Badge. He said he needs this because he has severe dyslexia and struggles to use parking meters and to understand the rules for car parks. He said that means he gets parking tickets and needs to rely on others for support. Mr X would like the Council to issue him a Blue Badge.

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Blue Badges help people with disabilities or health conditions park closer to their destination. The Department for Transport sets out how councils should consider applications for a blue badge. There are two types of eligibility:
• people who automatically qualify, and
• those who qualify after further assessment.
7. Applicants may qualify after further assessment if they:
• 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.
8. In Mr X’s application for a Blue Badge set out the difficulties he experienced with parking. He also reported struggling with arthritis. The Council decided Mr X did not meet the eligibility criteria for a blude badge because his conditions did not impact on his mobility substantially. Mr X appealed and supplied an Autism assessment.
9. The Council completed a further telephone assessment with Mr X. It also considered his Autism assessment. The Council decided Mr X was still not eligible for a blue badge as he did not meet the criteria set out by the Department of Transport. was
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. That means we will not take another look at a decision and come to our own conclusions. Instead, we look at the process the Council followed when it made its decision. If we consider it followed these processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
11. The Council considered Mr X’s application in line with the relevant guidance and considered the evidence provided. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s Blue Badge application to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman