Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s blue badge application. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council refused to renew his 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 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 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. 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.
7. There are two types of eligibility criteria. If immediate eligibility is not established, the Council needs to consider if the applicant drives regularly and has severe disability in both arms, or has a severe and enduring disability that causes an inability to or considerable difficulty to walk, or be at risk of serious harm to self and others when walking.
8. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.
9. Mr X applied to renew his Blue Badge. The Council refused his application. The Council said there was not enough evidence of considerable difficulty when walking or a risk of serious harm to self and others when walking.
10. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. The Council said Mr X did not demonstrate he meet the Department for Transport’s criteria for a blue badge and the decision to refuse his application was upheld.
11. The Council’s consideration of Mr X’s request and appeal correspondence indicates it considered Mr X’s medical conditions. The Council also considered Mr X’s mobility assessment.
12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.
13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. On balance, the Council has considered Mr X’s application in line with the Department for Transport’s guidance.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr 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