Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X a Blue Badge. This is because there is not enough fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council refused his Blue Badge application. He said the mobility assessments ignored his fluctuating conditions.
2. Mr X said the Council did not provide an Expert Assessor (EA) form and he was not assessed under the non-visible disability criteria. He said he was dismissed and judged unfairly. He wants the Council to review its appeal process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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. Mr X applied for a Blue Badge under the mobility criteria. He attended an Independent Mobility Assessment (IMA) which concluded he did not meet the criteria for a Blue Badge because he walked 95 meters at a normal pace without significant difficulty.
8. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision and attended another IMA as part of the appeals process. The Council again declined to issue Mr X a Blue Badge. The assessment notes stated he was observed to walk 80 meters without signs of considerable difficulty and therefore did not meet the criteria.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. We are not an appeal body and only consider if there is fault in the way the Council made its decision. The Council completed two IMA’s which record that Mr X did not meet the Blue Badge criteria. It then wrote to Mr X and set out its reasons why. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify the Ombudsman’s involvement.
10. Mr X said the Council did not provide an EA form when asked and so he was not assessed under the non-visible disability criteria. The Council wrote to Mr X to explain he could apply under the non-visible criteria but did not attach the EA form. Since Mr X made his complaint, he provided evidence to the Council to show he started to receive the mobility element of a Personal Independence Payment (PIP). Mr X is now automatically eligible for a Blue Badge which the Council have issued. Therefore, there would be no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman